Interview guides · DX Factor

DX Factor Software Engineer Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Testing practice for DX Factor software engineer candidates: the boundaries worth covering, and why flakiness is a real defect.

The 60-second brief

The Software Engineer role at DX Factor is a foundational position focused on building robust, scalable solutions. As a member of the engineering team, you will be responsible for translating complex requirements into clean, maintainable code, contributing directly to the technical excellence that defines the organization.

Seniority moves the scope further than the words in the title do. An earlier-career loop mostly checks that you implement something correctly and can reason about its cost, while a senior loop checks that you can pick between two defensible designs and say what you gave up.

Focus areas

Detect concurrent edits instead of losing writes
Make every write idempotent under retry
Paginate large result sets with keyset cursors

Overview

This position is critical because it demands both a deep understanding of core programming principles and the ability to apply them in a fast-paced environment. You will work on projects that require a solid grasp of Object-Oriented Programming (OOP), ensuring that the software you build is not only functional but also architecturally sound. If you are passionate about writing efficient code and solving real-world technical problems, this role offers a platform to grow your expertise while making a tangible impact on the company’s product delivery.

The DX Factor interview process

DX Factor candidates report 2 rounds · ≈ 2-4 weeks. The stages below are what candidates describe, not a published process.

Initial Assessment

What this round decides is narrow: whether you can produce code that runs and is correct on inputs nobody showed you. An elegant solution that does not compile scores below a plain one that does, so write a correct brute force first, say out loud that you know its cost, and improve it with the working version still on screen. What separates strong answers is who finds the broken case. Trace your own code against an empty input, a single element, and duplicate keys before you say you are finished, because being told is far more expensive than noticing.

What to demonstrate

Whether degenerate inputs get checked without being asked for: an empty collection, one element, every element equal, and the extreme value the input type allows
Whether the complexity you state matches the code you actually wrote, including a sort or a copy sitting inside a loop
Whether the finished answer is verified against the worked examples before you call it done, rather than assumed correct because the code reads correctly

How to prepare

Take five problems you have already solved and, without running anything, write down what each returns for empty input, a single element, and all-duplicates. Then run them and count how many you predicted wrong.
Drill the brute force as its own skill: on ten problems, write only the obviously-correct slow version and time how long it takes to get it passing. If that is more than a few minutes, that is what to practise, not the optimal version.
Add a fixed last step before you submit anything, reading only the loop bounds and the initial value of each accumulator, which is where most off-by-one errors live

Final Technical Discussion

Coding rounds mostly set a floor. They decide whether you clear the bar, not where you land on the ladder. Level tends to come out of the design discussion and the ownership stories, so the question worth auditing beforehand is whether the scope you describe matches the scope of the job. Work that stops at your own service, or a story whose hard part was writing the code rather than getting several people to agree on an interface, reads a level below where you think you are interviewing, and that gap is usually resolved downwards.

What to demonstrate

Whether the largest thing you describe owning ran end to end — the decision, the migration path, the rollout, and what you did when it went wrong — or stopped at the change you merged
Whether design answers include what you would not build, what you would defer, and what you would measure before committing, rather than only what the boxes are
Whether a disagreement in a story was settled with something checkable — a benchmark, a prototype, a written proposal — instead of by seniority or by waiting it out
Whether you can say which calls you made alone and which you escalated, and why the line sat where it did

How to prepare

Write your largest piece of owned work as a timeline of decisions — who decided what, when, and what you did when the plan broke — then delete every sentence whose subject is "we" and see how much survives
Take one system you know well and drill the migration answer: how old and new paths run side by side under live traffic, how you compare their outputs, what the rollback is once writes are going to both, and which step you would not automate
Map each line of the ladder in the job posting to a specific thing you have done, find the line you cannot support, and prepare the closest evidence you have plus an honest account of the gap

Where candidates lose points

Assuming an isolation level prevents the anomaly you actually have

Isolation levels are named by the SQL standard but implemented differently, so any claim about one is only true of a named engine. PostgreSQL defaults to READ COMMITTED, where every statement takes a fresh snapshot, so two statements inside one transaction can legitimately disagree about the same row. Its REPEATABLE READ is snapshot isolation: it removes non-repeatable and phantom reads but permits write skew, where two transactions each read a set, each conclude their own write is safe, both commit, and the combined result violates a constraint that no single row expresses. Only SERIALIZABLE closes that, and it closes it by aborting a transaction with a serialization failure (SQLSTATE 40001), which means the guarantee is theoretical unless the application has a retry loop. InnoDB's REPEATABLE READ is a different mechanism again - plain SELECTs read a consistent snapshot while locking reads and writes see the latest committed row - so a read-modify-write inside one transaction can act on a value that the transaction's own earlier SELECT never returned.

Running a schema change as though the lock lasts as long as the statement

In PostgreSQL an ALTER TABLE that needs an ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock must first wait for every open transaction touching that table, and while it waits, later queries needing a conflicting lock queue behind it rather than overtaking it. A DDL statement that would execute in milliseconds, issued while a thirty-second analytics query is open, therefore stalls all traffic on that table for thirty seconds: the outage length is set by the longest open transaction, not by the change. The defences are specific and worth knowing by name - set lock_timeout low and retry rather than queue, add columns without a volatile default so no table rewrite occurs (from version 11 a non-volatile default is a metadata-only change), build indexes with CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY while accepting that it cannot run inside a transaction block and leaves an invalid index behind if it fails, and add constraints as NOT VALID followed by a separate VALIDATE CONSTRAINT, which takes a weaker lock.

Sharing mutable state with no stated owner

Say which thread, request or task owns each mutable structure, and what protects it when the answer is more than one: a lock, a queue that hands ownership across, or an immutable copy per reader. A structure documented as safe for concurrent reads is usually not safe for a concurrent write alongside those reads.

Assuming fixed-width integer arithmetic cannot overflow

In languages with fixed-width integers, including C, C++, Java, Go and Rust, computing a midpoint as (lo + hi) / 2 overflows once the sum passes the type's maximum, so write lo + (hi - lo) / 2 instead. Say which language you are in: arbitrary-precision integers, as in Python or Ruby, remove this specific hazard and none of the others.

Questions & practice

Diff a projection against the primary without per-row point reads

Hard · reconciliation · range hashing · throttling

The listing projection has drifted and some rows show a stale version. The primary holds 40,000,000 resource rows across 12,000 tenants while serving 1,200 writes and 14,000 reads per second. The obvious repair, reading each resource row and comparing its version against the projection, is correct and would eventually finish. Explain precisely why it is unacceptable here, then give a diff that finds the differing rows, state its complexity, and make it safe to run against a live primary. Replication lag is usually under 100 ms and is not bounded.

Approach

Quantify the naive cost rather than calling it slow: 40,000,000 point reads at even 0.5 ms each is over five hours serialised, and the only lever is concurrency, which is exactly what you cannot spend. The primary's pool is sized for the write path, and 40,000,000 random reads evict the buffer cache that sustains the 85 percent cache hit rate, so the audit degrades the system it is auditing.
Replace random access with one ordered pass per side. Both sides can be read in (tenant_id, resource_id) order, which is a sequential scan on each and a merge join in O(n) time and O(1) memory. For a dense diff that is the whole answer, and it reads the primary once instead of 40,000,000 times.
For the expected sparse case, compare range hashes instead of rows: partition the key space, compute per range an order-independent aggregate over hash(resource_id, version), compare aggregates, and descend only into ranges that differ. With d differing rows and branching factor B, at most d ranges mismatch per level, so the drill-down examines O(d log_B(n/d)) ranges and reads full rows only in mismatching leaves.
Aggregate with a sum modulo 2^64 or a multiset hash, never XOR. XOR is order-independent but self-cancelling, so two rows wrong in the same way, or a row duplicated on one side, leave the range aggregate matching and the range is declared clean.
Pin the comparison to a point in time or it reports lag as drift: consider only rows whose updated_at is older than now minus a lag margin, and re-check each candidate mismatch individually before repairing. At 1,200 writes per second a diff without this reports thousands of false positives, and an unattended repairer would then overwrite live rows with stale values.
Make the run resumable and throttled: batch by range key, persist the last completed range, and watch a signal such as replica lag or primary CPU, pausing rather than pressing on. A reconciliation that cannot be stopped and resumed gets killed halfway and restarted from zero, which is how a repair becomes an incident.

Follow-up

The diff reports 900 stale rows. How do you decide between patching those rows and rebuilding the projection from resource_revision?
Same job, but the projection lives in a search index that cannot be scanned in key order. What changes?
How would you run this continuously at low cost instead of only as incident response?

Find overlapping job attempts and peak concurrency from lease records

Medium · sweep line · intervals · leases

A day of job_run history yields about 50,000,000 attempt records: (job_run_id, job_type, attempt, started_at, finished_at which is NULL when the worker died, lease_expires_at). Leases expire on a clock, so a job that outran its lease ran twice. Produce (a) every job_run_id whose attempts overlapped in wall-clock time and (b) the peak number of simultaneously running attempts per job_type with the minute it occurred. Target O(n log n). State how you treat a NULL finished_at and what clock skew does to your answer.

Approach

Define the interval before sorting anything: an attempt occupies [started_at, COALESCE(finished_at, lease_expires_at)). finished_at is observed and lease_expires_at is only a promise, so every attempt without a finish contributes an estimate and the whole result is a lower bound on overlap rather than an exact count.
For peak concurrency, sweep: emit 2n endpoints, sort by (timestamp, kind) with ends ordered before starts at equal timestamps, then walk the sequence maintaining a counter per job_type and record each type's maximum with its timestamp. O(n log n) dominated by the sort, O(n) space, or O(1) extra if the sort is external and the walk streams.
For overlap detection, do not compare attempts pairwise. A single global sort by (job_run_id, started_at) gives both the grouping and the order; within a group, keep the maximum end seen so far and report an overlap exactly when the next start is less than that running maximum, which is one linear pass after the sort.
Half-open intervals matter and are easy to get wrong: with closed intervals an attempt ending at the same millisecond another begins reads as concurrency two, and across 50,000,000 records that artefact swamps the real signal.
State the clock caveat: started_at and finished_at are written by different workers, so under skew of a few hundred milliseconds an apparent overlap shorter than that bound is not evidence. Filter reported overlaps by a minimum duration, or prefer timestamps written by whichever component heartbeats the lease.
Scale the sort rather than assuming it fits: the sweep emits two endpoints per attempt, so 50,000,000 records become 100,000,000 endpoints, and at roughly 24 bytes each, an 8-byte timestamp plus a 4-byte job_type plus a kind flag padded to alignment, that is about 2.4 GB of sort keys before any scratch space. Either push the ordering into the database behind an index on (job_type, started_at) or run an external merge sort in chunks; the overlap pass sorts n records rather than 2n, so it is the cheaper of the two.

Follow-up

A handler is not idempotent and you have found 400 overlapping jobs. Which of them actually caused damage, and what would you query to find out?
Peak concurrency for one job_type is 4 against a configured cap of 4. Is the cap working, or is the data hiding attempts that never started?
How would you compute both answers incrementally as records arrive rather than in a daily batch?

Track a rolling failure rate per destination for circuit decisions

Easy · sliding window · ring buffer · circuit breaker

The egress service delivers about 1,500 webhooks per second across roughly 40,000 destinations, each call bounded by a 10 second timeout. Maintain, per destination, the failure rate over the trailing 60 seconds so a caller can ask before dispatch whether the circuit should open. Attempts arrive as (destination_id, finished_at_ms, outcome). Requirement: amortised O(1) per attempt, with total memory bounded by the destination count rather than by traffic. Give the structure, its exact memory, and the rule that stops a destination with three attempts from opening a circuit.

Approach

Name the exact-deque version and then reject it as the default. Holding timestamps and advancing a tail pointer past anything older than now minus 60 seconds is a correct two-pointer window at amortised O(1) per attempt, but its memory tracks in-window traffic, so one destination in a retry storm holds hundreds of thousands of entries while thousands of quiet destinations hold none.
Use a ring of 60 one-second buckets per destination, each bucket a pair of counters for attempts and failures. On an attempt, advance the ring by the elapsed whole seconds, zeroing at most min(elapsed, 60) buckets, then increment the head. That is amortised O(1) with a fixed footprint per destination.
State the footprint: 60 buckets times two 4-byte counters is 480 bytes of payload per destination, so 40,000 destinations is roughly 20 to 25 MB with per-entry overhead, bounded by the catalogue rather than by the rate. The cost is granularity, since the oldest bucket ages out in whole seconds, which is far tighter than the decision needs.
Require a minimum sample before the circuit may open. A destination with three attempts and three failures reads as 100 percent and is not evidence; a floor of roughly 20 attempts in the window makes the ratio meaningful, and below that floor use a run of consecutive failures as the trigger instead.
Expire idle destinations, or memory grows with every destination ever seen rather than with the live set. Hold the rings in a bounded LRU keyed on destination_id and treat a miss as no history, which is the correct default for an endpoint that has been silent for a minute.
Keep the half-open probe out of the window arithmetic. After the circuit opens, one probe per interval decides whether to close it, and folding that single success into a window that still holds a 100 percent failure history would reopen the destination on one data point.

Worked solution (20 min)

Define the bucket struct and the advance step: take floor(finished_at_ms / 1000), compare with the ring's current second, zero min(delta, 60) buckets forward, then write into the new head.
Trace a destination that receives 5 attempts, goes silent for 90 seconds, then receives one more, and confirm the rate is computed from one attempt rather than six.
Compute total memory for 40,000 destinations at 60 buckets of two 4-byte counters, and state what changes if the window widens to 300 seconds.
Write the open rule as a single predicate combining the minimum-attempt floor with the rate threshold.

Expected result: A per-destination ring of 60 one-second (attempts, failures) buckets advanced lazily for amortised O(1) cost, roughly 480 bytes of counters per destination and about 20 to 25 MB for 40,000 of them, an LRU bound on live rings, and an open rule requiring both a minimum attempt count in the window and a rate above threshold.

Verify it yourself

After 60 seconds of silence a destination's window holds zero attempts and cannot open a circuit.
Memory measured with one hot destination and 39,999 idle ones is indistinguishable from the reverse, which the deque version would fail.
Replaying the same attempt stream with the clock shifted by an hour yields the same final rate.

Follow-up

The fleet is 30 instances and each sees roughly a thirtieth of a destination's traffic. Where does the rate actually live, and what does a per-instance answer get wrong?
A destination answers in 9.5 seconds and succeeds. It is not failing but it is consuming your per-destination concurrency. What signal should open the circuit here?
How would you make the window survive a process restart, and is it worth the cost?

Denormalise tenant onto revisions and backfill it live

Hard · denormalisation · online migration · backfill

resource_revision (revision_id, resource_id, version, actor_user_id, change_kind, patch, request_id, created_at) has 400M rows and no tenant column; tenant_id lives only on resource. Two reads need it: a tenant-scoped audit feed ordered by created_at DESC, and an offboarding purge. Both join back to resource today. Justify adding tenant_id to resource_revision against those two reads, name the anomaly the copy introduces and the constraint that prevents it, then give the ordered migration for a live table taking 1.2k writes/second — the lock each step takes, how the backfill is batched, and where each step stops being reversible. PostgreSQL 16.

Approach

Justify from the access path rather than from taste. Without the column, the audit feed either scans resource_revision by created_at and discards other tenants' rows, or resolves the tenant's resource_ids first and probes with them — both proportional to the tenant's whole history rather than to one page. With (tenant_id, created_at DESC, revision_id DESC) it is a seek that stops at 50 rows, and the purge becomes a ranged delete instead of a join.
Name the cost exactly: a second copy of a fact can disagree with the first. Make the disagreement unwritable rather than documented — add UNIQUE (resource_id, tenant_id) on resource so it can serve as a foreign-key target, then FOREIGN KEY (resource_id, tenant_id) REFERENCES resource (resource_id, tenant_id) on the revision table. A revision can then only ever carry its parent's tenant.
Step one, expand: ALTER TABLE resource_revision ADD COLUMN tenant_id BIGINT NULL, with no default, so it is a catalogue change and no rewrite. It still needs ACCESS EXCLUSIVE for an instant, and that instant queues behind the longest open transaction on the table while every later query queues behind it — set lock_timeout to 2s and retry rather than wait.
Step two, dual-write: deploy the writer that populates tenant_id on every new revision while reads still use the join. Reversible by redeploying the previous build, because nothing reads the column yet.
Step three, backfill: batch by primary key rather than by created_at so the cursor is dense and resumable — UPDATE resource_revision rr SET tenant_id = r.tenant_id FROM resource r WHERE r.resource_id = rr.resource_id AND rr.revision_id > $1 AND rr.revision_id <= $1 + 5000 AND rr.tenant_id IS NULL — committing per batch and persisting the cursor. Throttle on replica replay lag and on dead-tuple count, since each batch writes 5,000 new row versions. Run the backfill before the index exists so those updates can stay HOT.
Step four, index then enforce then contract: CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY (cannot run inside a transaction block, scans the table twice, waits on open transactions, and leaves an INVALID index to drop concurrently if it fails); ADD CONSTRAINT ... CHECK (tenant_id IS NOT NULL) NOT VALID, then VALIDATE CONSTRAINT, which takes only SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE, after which SET NOT NULL uses the validated check instead of re-scanning on PostgreSQL 12 and later. Only then move the audit reads onto the column and, in a later deploy, delete the join path.

Follow-up

The backfill is half finished and a rollback is required. What state is the table in, and what does the previous build do with a half-populated column?
How do you verify the backfill actually finished, given rows are still being inserted while it runs?
A resource must now be movable between tenants. What does that do to the composite foreign key and to the revisions already written?

Keep soft-deleted accounts from blocking re-registration

Easy · soft delete · unique constraints · engine differences

app_user holds user_id, tenant_id, email CITEXT, password_hash (NULL for SSO principals), email_verified_at, auth_version, status ('invited','active','suspended','deactivated'), created_at, updated_at, deleted_at. Two live accounts for one address inside a tenant must be impossible, but an address freed by a soft delete must be reusable, and the same tenant may delete and re-register it repeatedly. Write the uniqueness DDL for PostgreSQL 16, then the equivalent for MySQL 8 where partial indexes do not exist, and say what each permits once three deleted rows already hold that address.

Approach

Start from what is actually unique: not (tenant_id, email), but (tenant_id, email) among live rows. PostgreSQL says that directly — CREATE UNIQUE INDEX app_user_live_email ON app_user (tenant_id, email) WHERE deleted_at IS NULL. A full constraint over the same two columns burns the address permanently the first time someone deletes an account.
Keep case-insensitivity in the type or the index, never in the application: CITEXT as given, or UNIQUE (tenant_id, lower(email)) as an expression index where the extension is unavailable. A case-sensitive unique column is exactly how two accounts for one human appear.
For MySQL 8 the predicate has to move inside the key: add a discriminator column that is a constant 0 while the row is live and is set to user_id on delete, with UNIQUE (tenant_id, email, deleted_marker). Live rows share the constant and still collide; deleted rows differ from each other and stop colliding.
State the NULL variant and its dependency: leaving the marker NULL for deleted rows also works, because a unique index treats NULLs as distinct — true in MySQL, and true in PostgreSQL only under the default NULLS DISTINCT, which PostgreSQL 15 lets you reverse. Check the polarity against the three existing deleted rows: constant-on-live is what preserves the collision you want, and reversing it silently admits duplicate live accounts.
Say what a soft delete must do besides setting deleted_at: increment auth_version so existing tokens stop validating, leave resource.owner_user_id and resource_revision.actor_user_id intact, and accept that the address is retained — erasure is a different requirement answered by scrubbing the column, not by a DELETE that would break those references.

Worked solution (20 min)

Create the PostgreSQL partial unique index, insert a live row, soft delete it, and insert the same address again.
Repeat the delete-and-reinsert cycle three times and confirm three deleted rows coexist with exactly one live row.
Write the MySQL form with the discriminator, then deliberately reverse the polarity so live rows carry NULL, and show two live duplicates commit.
Attempt a second live insert on both engines and map the resulting 23505 / ER_DUP_ENTRY to the 409 the handler should return.

Expected result: PostgreSQL rejects only the second live row and admits unlimited deleted ones. MySQL behaves identically with UNIQUE (tenant_id, email, deleted_marker) where live = 0; with the polarity reversed, two live rows commit and nothing afterwards can tell them apart.

Verify it yourself

Group live rows by (tenant_id, lower(email)) after a randomised insert/delete run — no group exceeds one.
Inserting 'User@x.test' after 'user@x.test' is rejected; if it is accepted, the case handling is in application code rather than in the index.
EXPLAIN a login lookup and confirm the partial index is chosen — it is only usable by queries that carry the deleted_at IS NULL predicate, so a query without it falls back to a scan.

Follow-up

A deleted account re-registers with the same address the next day. Do the old resource rows follow the new user_id, and how does the API keep the two principals apart?
How do you honour an erasure request while resource_revision.actor_user_id still references this table?
What changes if a user may hold membership in two tenants?

How would you define Java as a "pure" object-oriented language?

Medium

Approach

Work from the requirement backwards to the design.
Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer contains.
State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.

Follow-up

How would you know your answer was wrong?
What assumption would you test first?

Why does Java not use pointers, unlike languages like C++?

Medium

Approach

Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer contains.
State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.

Follow-up

How would you know your answer was wrong?
What assumption would you test first?

Can you explain the concept of function overloading?

Medium

Approach

Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer contains.
Work from the requirement backwards to the design.
Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.

Follow-up

How would you know your answer was wrong?
What assumption would you test first?

What is a copy constructor and how is it used?

Medium

Approach

Work from the requirement backwards to the design.
State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer contains.

Follow-up

How would you know your answer was wrong?
What assumption would you test first?

Specify the outbound webhook contract a customer endpoint can verify

Medium · webhooks · hmac · at-least-once · ordering

Egress delivery sends resource.created, resource.updated and resource.archived to roughly 40k customer endpoints at about 1.5k deliveries/second, with a per-destination concurrency cap of 4 and a 10 second connect-plus-read timeout, at-least-once from the relay. The receiver is code you do not control, often behind a proxy that may re-encode JSON. Specify the payload envelope, how the receiver verifies authenticity and rejects replays, what ordering it may assume, how it deduplicates, which status codes it should return and what each means to us, and the retry, circuit and replay behaviour.

Approach

Send the fact, not a pointer: event_id, event_type, aggregate_type, aggregate_id, aggregate_version, occurred_at and the payload copied from outbox_event. A receiver told only that resource 42 changed has to call back, and the call back returns a newer state than the event describes - that is precisely how a consumer applies changes out of order while believing it is following them.
Sign the exact bytes on the wire: HMAC-SHA256 over the timestamp, a separator, and the raw body, in a header, compared in constant time before the body is parsed. Instruct receivers to verify the raw bytes, never a re-serialised copy, since a proxy that reorders keys or changes whitespace invalidates a signature computed over re-encoded JSON. Reject a timestamp outside a tolerance - five minutes is typical - and keep a short seen-set of event_ids, because a capture replayed inside the tolerance still verifies.
Support key rotation by sending several signature values in one header during the overlap window and publishing that any one that verifies is sufficient. Without that rule a key rotation is a synchronised outage across every destination at once.
State the guarantee as it actually is: at-least-once and unordered, including within a single aggregate_id. The outbox is ordered per aggregate at the source, but the relay holds up to 4 requests in flight per destination and backs off each retry independently, so a version 6 delivery that needs one retry lands after a version 7 that succeeded on its first attempt. Publishing per-aggregate ordering we do not enforce is worse than publishing none, because a receiver that trusts it overwrites new state with old. Receivers deduplicate on event_id and apply conditionally - UPDATE ... WHERE aggregate_version < :incoming, or the same comparison under a row lock on the aggregate - which discards stale redeliveries and stays correct when two deliveries for one aggregate are processed at the same time. A duplicate and an out-of-order delivery then have the same outcome: no-op.
Define the response contract in the receiver's terms. 2xx means durably accepted, and accepting means writing it down - a receiver that does its processing inline inside our 10 second timeout will be retried while it is still working. 4xx is permanent and we stop. 429, 5xx and timeouts are retried with capped exponential backoff and full jitter within the per-destination concurrency cap, and a circuit opens after a run of consecutive failures and half-opens on a schedule, so a permanently dead endpoint costs one probe per interval instead of a growing queue.
Give them a recovery path that does not involve us holding a queue for everyone: a visible parked state, and a replay endpoint keyed by event_id or time range, so a receiver that was down for two hours asks for the gap on its own schedule.

Worked solution (30 min)

Write the envelope fields and mark which are needed for deduplication and which for discarding a stale delivery.
Write the signature string construction and the receiver's verification steps in order, including the constant-time compare and the tolerance check.
Write the receiver's idempotent apply: dedupe on event_id, then the version-conditional write that discards stale and concurrently delivered redeliveries.
Write the status-to-action table from our side: which codes retry, which stop, and what opens the circuit.
Describe the parked state and the replay call, including what the customer must supply.

Expected result: A self-contained signed envelope, verification over raw bytes with a replay window and a seen-set, an at-least-once guarantee that states delivery is unordered even within one aggregate, a version-conditional apply, a status table that distinguishes permanent from transient, and a customer-driven replay path.

Verify it yourself

Delivering the same event twice leaves the receiver's state identical to delivering it once.
Delivering version 7 and then version 6 for one aggregate leaves version 7 applied.
A destination that always times out costs one probe per circuit interval rather than a retry queue.

Follow-up

A customer insists an event never arrived. What do you check, in order, and which table settles the argument?
A receiver cannot store a version and asks us to deliver their events in order. What would the relay have to give up to offer that, and what does one failing event then do to the rest of their stream?

Exports duplicate a row range about once a week

Hard · leases · clock skew · idempotency · fencing

Roughly once a week an export writes a file containing a duplicated range of rows. The affected job_run rows show attempt = 1, status = succeeded, one started_at, and a lease_owner naming a different host from the one whose logs show the job starting. Leases last 30 seconds and are heartbeated every 10 from inside the handler; lease_expires_at is computed on the worker and compared against the database's now(). Find the mechanism, and give a fix that holds even if you cannot fix the clocks.

Approach

Start from the fact that eliminates the obvious answer. attempt = 1 means no retry was recorded, so this is not a re-run after failure; two workers ran the same row concurrently and the takeover path never touched the counter. lease_owner naming a host other than the one that started the job is the same statement from the other side.
Enumerate the mechanisms that cause a premature takeover, then find the signal that separates them. Either the lease genuinely expired because the heartbeat did not fire, which is what happens when the heartbeat runs on the handler's own thread and the handler makes a long blocking call, or it only appeared expired because two clocks disagree, since lease_expires_at is written from the worker's clock and evaluated against the database's. The discriminator is the distribution: incidents clustered on the longest exports indict the heartbeat, incidents clustered on one host indict skew. Measure both, and measure each host's offset against the database directly.
Read the reclaim query precisely. In PostgreSQL now() is transaction start time, not statement time, so a reclaimer holding a long transaction compares against an older timestamp than expected; clock_timestamp() is the statement-time function. This is worth ruling in or out before you redesign anything, because it changes which rows look expired.
Remove the second clock rather than trying to synchronise it. Issue and extend the lease in the database, with lease_expires_at = now() + interval '30 seconds' in both the claim and the heartbeat, so exactly one clock is ever compared and worker skew stops mattering to this predicate.
Accept that a lease can still expire under a slow worker, because a lease cannot distinguish slow from dead, and fence the work. Carry a monotonically increasing lease generation and make every write the handler performs conditional on still holding it, as UPDATE ... WHERE job_run_id = $1 AND lease_owner = $2 AND lease_generation = $3, so a displaced worker's writes affect zero rows and it aborts instead of duplicating.
Make the handler's writes idempotent independently of all that: give each exported chunk a natural key of (job_run_id, batch_start) with a unique constraint so a second copy conflicts rather than appends, move the heartbeat off the handler's thread, and increment attempt on takeover so the event is visible in a metric.

Follow-up

The displaced worker has already streamed half the file to object storage. What makes that side effect safe to repeat?
You now count takeovers. What alert fires on that counter, and at what threshold?
What breaks if you simply raise the lease to five minutes?

Suggested practice checklist

For someone fluent in a dynamic language who has shipped real work but has never had to say what the runtime is doing underneath. The week is built on measuring and deliberately breaking things, because the questions that expose this background are the ones where the interviewer asks why a second time.

Day 1 — Measure before reasoning

Take a slow piece of your own code, write down in advance where you believe the time goes, then profile it and record how wrong the guess was. The cost is usually an allocation you did not notice or an accidental quadratic membership test.
Replace one list membership test inside a loop with a set and measure at a thousand, ten thousand and a hundred thousand elements, confirming the shape of the curve rather than only that it got faster.
Write down the three quantities you can now measure instead of assert: wall time, peak memory, and call count for the function you suspected.

Deliverable: A before-and-after profile of real code plus a written note on the size of the gap between the guess and the measurement.

Day 2 — References, copies, and the bugs they produce

Write the function with a mutable default argument, call it three times, and explain the accumulating result: the default is evaluated once when the function is defined, so every call shares one object.
Build a nested structure, take a shallow copy, mutate an inner element, and show that both views changed, because a shallow copy duplicates the container and not the elements. Then fix it with a deep copy and state the cost you just accepted.
Write two functions, one mutating its argument in place and one rebinding the local name, and predict the caller's view of each before running it. That single distinction produces most of the bugs that pass their tests.

Deliverable: Three small programs whose output you predicted correctly before running, each with a one-line statement of the rule underneath.

Day 3 — Types, once, in a language that checks them

Port one module you have already written, roughly a hundred lines, into a statically typed language, and record every place the compiler demanded an answer your original had left implicit: a value that can be absent, a numeric width, a case never handled.
Write the same signature in both languages and state what the static one guarantees before the program runs and what it does not, since it will not save you from a wrong algorithm or an index out of range.
Write the difference between an interface satisfied by declaration and one satisfied structurally, with one case each where the other approach would miss the mistake.

Deliverable: One module in two languages plus a list of the questions the type checker forced you to answer.

Day 4 — Concurrency, starting with what actually runs at the same time

Run the same CPU-bound function across four threads and four processes and measure both. Under the default CPython build the threaded version will not speed up, because only one thread executes bytecode at a time; the process version will. Check which build you are on first, since free-threaded builds remove that lock and change the result.
Then run a blocking I/O workload across four threads and measure it speeding up, because the interpreter releases that lock around blocking calls, which is why treating threads as useless is wrong as a general claim.
Build the lost update: two threads each incrementing a shared counter a hundred thousand times, and show a final value below the expected sum, because an increment is a load, an add and a store and the thread can be suspended between them. Fix it with a lock and then measure what the lock costs.

Deliverable: Three measurements, threads against processes on CPU work, threads on I/O work, and a demonstrated lost update, each with the mechanism written underneath.

Day 5 — Debugging as a procedure rather than an instinct

Work one real failure as a bisection: find a revision or an input size where it is good and one where it is bad, halve repeatedly, and state the two assumptions bisection needs, that the property changes exactly once across the range and that the test is reliable.
Minimise one failing input to the smallest version that still fails, and record how many rounds it took.
Keep a hypothesis log for one bug in three columns, what I believe, what would disprove it, what I observed, and stop yourself the first time you are about to change two things at once.

Deliverable: One bug worked to root cause with a written hypothesis log and a minimised reproducing input.

Day 6 — Tests that catch the bug you are about to write

Implement an LRU cache with a capacity bound, then write the three test cases that would catch an off-by-one in eviction: insert exactly capacity items and assert nothing was evicted, insert one more and assert the least recently used key is the one gone, and read an old key just before that insert so the eviction victim changes.
Add a property test comparing your implementation against a deliberately slow reference, an ordered list scanned linearly, over a few thousand random operation sequences, because a slow reference finds the cases you would not have thought to write.
Write one numeric test that fails under exact equality and passes with a tolerance, and state why the tolerance has to be relative rather than absolute once the magnitudes grow.

Deliverable: An LRU implementation with three boundary tests, one property test against a slow reference, and one tolerance-based numeric test.

Day 7 — Debug something broken, out loud

Have someone plant three defects in a two-hundred-line program, an off-by-one, a shared mutable state bug, and a wrong error-handling path, then find them while narrating, under a fixed rule: state the hypothesis before touching anything.
Time each one and record which tool found it, reading, a printed value, a debugger, or a test, because the question asked in interviews is how you would find it rather than what it was.
Write the sentence you will use when you do not yet know the cause, one that names the next measurement instead of offering a guess.

Deliverable: A recorded debugging session with time-to-find per defect and the method that found each.

Risky changes and the reversal path

For anything that touched live traffic, be ready to say how you would have undone it: a flag, a staged rollout, dual writes with the old path still authoritative. Once the old column is dropped or the source rows are overwritten there is no reverse, so name what you kept a copy of and for how long.

Ship under a deadline and bound the debt you chose

Medium · pagination · technical debt · tradeoffs

You have four days to ship a tenant-facing listing endpoint. The version you would defend uses keyset pagination over (tenant_id, status, updated_at DESC, resource_id DESC); the version you can finish uses LIMIT/OFFSET with no matching index. Describe a deadline call you actually made of this shape: what you shipped, what you knowingly deferred, how you bounded the damage with a mechanism rather than an intention, and the specific numeric condition that would force the follow-up. Name who you told and where you wrote it down.

Approach

Name the deferred failure precisely instead of calling it slow. OFFSET n makes the database produce and discard n rows, so cost grows with page depth; without an index matching the sort, every matching row is read and sorted before the limit applies; and rows inserted between two page fetches shift across the boundary so items are skipped or repeated with nothing in the response to signal it.
Bound the blast radius with something mechanical rather than a promise: cap maximum page depth, cap page size, restrict the endpoint to one internal caller, or keep it behind a flag. State which failure each cap removes and which it leaves standing.
Attach a number to the trigger and wire it to an alarm: the first tenant crossing N resources, or the endpoint's p99 crossing its share of the 400 ms budget, so the debt announces itself instead of waiting to be remembered.
Write it where the next engineer looks, which is the code and the ticket, not a chat message: what was deferred, why, the cap, and the trigger.
Report what actually happened in your real example, including the case where the trigger never fired and the debt was correctly never repaid.

Follow-up

At what page depth does the offset version breach your latency budget, given your page size and row counts?
What breaks first when you switch to keyset pagination later, and what does a client holding an old page token see?
Who would have overruled you if you had asked for two more days, and did you ask?

Argue against a design, lose, and commit anyway

Medium · disagreement · service boundaries · decision records

Describe a design you argued against and lost. State the failure you predicted as a named mechanism, not a feeling about complexity: two services that would need one transaction, a projection with no rebuild path, a write path with no idempotency key. Say what evidence you brought, what the decision maker weighed instead, and what you did after the decision was made: what you instrumented, what you wrote down, and whether the prediction came true. Five minutes.

Approach

State the prediction in falsifiable form up front: the mechanism, the condition that triggers it, and the observable outcome. A prediction that cannot be checked also cannot be credited to you later.
Show the evidence you had at the time and label each piece honestly as measured, analogous, or intuition. Keeping the intuition is fine; disguising it as data is the thing that erodes your standing in the next argument.
Represent the opposing case at full strength, including the constraint you did not control: a fixed date, a team boundary, or the fact that the decision was cheap to reverse and yours was not.
Make disagree-and-commit concrete. Name the artefact you left behind so the prediction could be settled without you: the alert and its threshold, the counter on the dashboard, the decision note that recorded the trade-off and the condition that would revisit it.
Report the outcome without editing it. If the design held and your predicted mechanism never fired, say so and say what you had mis-weighted, which is more persuasive than a vindication story.

Follow-up

What threshold on that alert would have proved you right, and did anyone ever look at it?
If the same proposal arrived tomorrow with the same deadline, would you argue it the same way?
How did you behave toward the design once it shipped and started failing in a different way than you predicted?

Unblock an engineer without taking the keyboard

Easy · mentoring · leases · at-least-once

A teammate has spent two days on a job handler that occasionally writes duplicate rows. They are certain the queue is delivering twice by mistake. You suspect a lease expiring under a slow handler, so the job is running concurrently with itself. Describe how you have unblocked someone in this position: what you asked before offering a hypothesis, what you showed them rather than told them, and what you left them owning. Then say what you would do if their theory turned out to be the right one.

Approach

Ask before diagnosing, and ask for things answerable from data they already have: the attempt count on the job rows that produced duplicates, the handler's observed duration against its lease expiry, and whether the duplicate rows share a natural key that a unique constraint could have caught.
Teach the shape rather than the answer. A lease cannot distinguish a dead worker from a slow one, so a handler that outruns its lease is running twice by design, and deploys deliver the other half by killing handlers mid-run on every rollout. Both of their candidate theories produce identical duplicate rows, which is why the evidence has to come from timings rather than from argument.
Hand over a checklist they execute: a natural key on every write the handler performs so the second copy collides rather than appends, the record of intent written before any external effect, a lease heartbeat while running, and the metric that shows it working.
Keep ownership with them deliberately. Pair on the first write, then step back; if you finish it yourself you have closed one ticket and left the same person stuck on the next redelivery.
Close on the systemic gap that let two days pass, which is usually a missing dashboard for attempt counts or an undocumented at-least-once contract, and fix that rather than only the bug.

Follow-up

How would you distinguish a genuine double-delivery from a lease expiry using only the data already stored?
Their handler calls an external endpoint before recording that it did. What do you tell them to change first?
What do you do the third time the same person brings you the same class of bug?