cswork / libraryOpen practice workspace

Interview guides · InterSources

InterSources Software Engineer Interview Guide

InterSources Software Engineer interview guide: reported rounds, questions and how candidates describe the process.

The 60-second brief

As a Software Engineer at InterSources, you are at the intersection of high-level business strategy and technical execution. Whether you are working on Salesforce Lightning integrations or diving into low-level x86 architecture, your work directly impacts the efficiency and scalability of the enterprise solutions provided to our clients. You are not just writing code; you are building the digital infrastructure that enables our partners to operate at scale. This role is critical because it demands a rare blend of technical depth and adaptability. You will be expected to navigate complex problem spaces—ranging from device drivers and boot-up sequences to complex cloud-based CRM deployments. Success here requires a proactive mindset, a high degree of technical ownership, and the ability to communicate technical trade-offs to business stakeholders.

This guide is scoped to a Software Engineer candidate at InterSources.

Focus areas

  • Device Drivers
  • Software Engineering
  • Low-Level Programming (x86)

The InterSources interview process

InterSources candidates report 6 rounds over 4-6 weeks. The stages below are what candidates describe, not a published process.

Initial Contact

The process begins with an initial outreach to discuss your application and interest.

What to demonstrate

  • The process begins with an initial outreach to discuss your application and interest
  • Depth in Device Drivers

How to prepare

  • Answer aloud and timed: Can you describe your experience with x86 low-level programming or device drivers?
  • Answer aloud and timed: How do you approach the boot-up sequence in a system-level environment?

Technical Deep-Dive 1

The first technical interview focuses on assessing your technical capabilities in depth.

What to demonstrate

  • The first technical interview focuses on assessing your technical capabilities in depth
  • Depth in Device Drivers

How to prepare

  • Answer aloud and timed: What are the key differences between Salesforce Lightning and classic development models?
  • Answer aloud and timed: How do you optimize BIOS performance or resolve low-level hardware conflicts?

Technical Deep-Dive 2

The second technical interview continues to evaluate your technical skills and problem-solving abilities.

What to demonstrate

  • The second technical interview continues to evaluate your technical skills and problem-solving abilities
  • Depth in Device Drivers

How to prepare

  • Answer aloud and timed: Explain a time you had to debug a complex system integration issue.
  • Answer aloud and timed: Describe a time you had to explain a complex technical issue to a non-technical stakeholder.

Business-Focused Discussion

A discussion aimed at understanding your fit within the business context and team dynamics.

What to demonstrate

  • A discussion aimed at understanding your fit within the business context and team dynamics
  • Depth in Device Drivers

How to prepare

  • Answer aloud and timed: How do you prioritize tasks when you have multiple competing deadlines?
  • Answer aloud and timed: Tell us about a project where you had to pivot your strategy due to changing requirements.

Final Panel Decisions

The hiring team reviews all interview data to make a final decision on your candidacy.

What to demonstrate

  • The hiring team reviews all interview data to make a final decision on your candidacy
  • Depth in Device Drivers

How to prepare

  • Answer aloud and timed: How do you handle feedback from a client or a project lead?
  • Work Device Drivers until you can explain it without notes

Offer Discussion

If selected, you will discuss the offer details and next steps.

What to demonstrate

  • If selected, you will discuss the offer details and next steps
  • Depth in Device Drivers

How to prepare

  • Work Device Drivers until you can explain it without notes
  • Work Software Engineering until you can explain it without notes

Where candidates lose points

Own your narrative

Be ready to explain exactly what your role was in past projects. Use "I" instead of "we" when discussing your specific contributions.

Be transparent about timelines

If you have a scheduling conflict, inform our team early. We are known for being accommodating, but communication is key.

Prepare for the business round

The third panel is not just a formality. Treat it with the same level of preparation as the technical rounds; we want to see how you think about the business impact of your code.

Ask insightful questions

Use the time at the end of your interviews to ask about team culture, upcoming projects, or how the company measures success for this role.

Questions & practice

Collapse a redelivered event batch into per-aggregate high-water marks

Easy · hashing · at-least-once · aggregation

You drain a batch of up to 5,000,000 events, each (aggregate_id BIGINT, aggregate_version INT, event_type, payload). The log guarantees order within one aggregate only; the batch merges 64 partitions, and a relay failover has redelivered a range, so an older version for an aggregate can appear after a newer one. Given a map of last_applied_version per aggregate, produce the events worth applying, at most one per (aggregate_id, version), plus the count discarded. Target O(n) time. State the memory for 2,000,000 distinct aggregates and what you do when it does not fit.

Approach

  1. One pass, one hash map from aggregate_id to the highest version kept, and a discard counter. An event whose version is at or below last_applied_version for its aggregate is dropped without further work, which is the whole reason the event carries its version rather than a delta. O(n) expected time, O(d) space in distinct aggregates.
  2. Keep the maximum, never the last occurrence. The redelivered range means the final appearance of an aggregate in the batch can be an older version than one seen earlier in the same batch, so last-wins applies stale state over newer state and the projection regresses with no error anywhere.
  3. Cost the memory instead of calling it large: an 8-byte key plus a 4-byte version is 12 bytes of payload, and an open-addressed table held at a 0.7 load factor costs roughly 17 bytes per entry before per-slot metadata, so 2,000,000 aggregates is tens of megabytes in a native layout and several times that in a runtime that boxes both key and value.
  4. If the distinct set exceeds memory, partition on hash(aggregate_id) mod P and reduce each partition independently. Every event for one aggregate hashes to the same partition, so the per-partition result is exact and the merge is concatenation rather than a second reduction.

Follow-up

  • The payload is a patch rather than a snapshot, so applying only the highest version loses the intermediate changes. What changes in your reduction?
  • How do you detect that version 7 arrived while version 6 was never delivered, and what should the consumer do about the gap?

Canonicalise a request body into a stable idempotency fingerprint

Medium · parsing · canonicalisation · hashing

idempotency_key.request_fingerprint is a SHA-256 over the method, path and canonicalised body, and a retry whose fingerprint differs must be rejected with 422 rather than served the stored response. Write the canonicaliser. Bodies are JSON up to 256 KB nested at most 32 levels; clients vary key order, whitespace and unicode escaping, and some send 64-bit ids as JSON numbers. Produce a deterministic byte string such that semantically identical bodies match and any semantic difference does not. State your complexity and name two normalisations you refuse to perform.

Approach

  1. Parse once into a tree, then re-serialise under fixed rules: object keys sorted, array order preserved, one escaping convention, no insignificant whitespace. Parsing is O(n) and sorting keys is O(k log k) per object, so O(n log n) overall with O(depth) stack, and the 32-level cap is enforced during parsing because hostile nesting is how a canonicaliser becomes a stack overflow.
  2. Sort keys by their UTF-8 bytes and say why the obvious implementation is wrong in some runtimes: a default string comparison that orders by UTF-16 code units places surrogate pairs, meaning code points from U+10000 up, below U+E000 to U+FFFF, which is not UTF-8 byte order, so two services written in different languages disagree on the same document.
  3. Do not re-encode numbers through a double. IEEE-754 binary64 represents integers exactly only up to 2^53, so normalising a 19-digit id through a float changes it, and 1 against 1.0 cannot be reconciled without deciding whether they are the same value. Preserve the literal token, and require ids as strings at the API boundary if you want them comparable.
  4. Reject duplicate keys rather than picking one. JSON permits them and parsers disagree, most keeping the last, so any choice you make ties the fingerprint to a parser detail that the code handling the request does not necessarily share.

Follow-up

  • A client sends the same logical request with an extra field your API ignores. Same key, different fingerprint, so you return 422. Is that the right answer?
  • Where does the fingerprint get computed relative to request decompression and the body-size limit?

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.

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?

Hold a per-tenant active cap against concurrent creates

Hard · write skew · isolation levels · constraints

A tenant on the standard plan may hold at most 50 resources with status='active'. The create handler runs SELECT count(*) FROM resource WHERE tenant_id = $1 AND status = 'active', compares to 50, then inserts. Two creates arrive 3 ms apart on different instances and the tenant lands at 51. Name the anomaly, say whether PostgreSQL 16 READ COMMITTED or REPEATABLE READ prevents it and why, then give an implementation that holds the cap at READ COMMITTED with the exact statements. Finally, say what changes when the cap is 'at most one running export per tenant' on job_run.

Approach

  1. Name it: write skew. The two transactions read an overlapping set and write disjoint rows, so there is no row-level conflict for the engine to detect and each commit is individually legal.
  2. Rule out the levels precisely. READ COMMITTED takes a fresh snapshot per statement and takes no lock on the counted rows, so both see 49. PostgreSQL's REPEATABLE READ is snapshot isolation: it removes non-repeatable reads and phantoms within the snapshot but still admits write skew, because the anomaly is not a re-read of a changed row, it is a read of a set that a concurrent transaction invalidates. Only SERIALIZABLE closes it, by tracking the read dependency and aborting one transaction with SQLSTATE 40001 — a guarantee that exists only if the application re-runs the whole transaction from the read.
  3. Convert the set predicate into a single-row conflict: keep tenant.active_resource_count and run UPDATE tenant SET active_resource_count = active_resource_count + 1 WHERE tenant_id = $1 AND active_resource_count < 50 in the same transaction as the INSERT. Zero affected rows is the cap, returned as 409. The row lock serialises the decision at any isolation level, and contention is bounded to one tenant's row — which is also the fair-scheduling unit, unlike a global counter that would convoy every tenant behind one row.
  4. State the cost you just took on: a counter is a second source of truth that can drift, so every path that changes status must adjust it inside the same transaction, and a periodic reconciliation has to exist, with resource_revision as the authority for what the count should have been.

Follow-up

  • A resource moves from archived back to active. Which statements change, and what breaks if the counter update and the status change land in different transactions?
  • The cap becomes plan-dependent and a plan can change mid-month. Where does the number 50 live, and who reads it?

Find version gaps and relay lag with window functions

Medium · window functions · event tables · frame semantics

outbox_event holds event_id, aggregate_type, aggregate_id, aggregate_version, event_type, payload, status ('pending','published','dead'), attempts, created_at, published_at. A projection is missing rows and you must decide whether the relay skipped events or the consumer dropped them. Write three queries over the last seven days: one listing every aggregate_id whose published aggregate_version sequence has a hole, one giving per-day counts with a running total, and one returning the newest published event per aggregate. For each, say where the window function is evaluated relative to WHERE and LIMIT. PostgreSQL 16.

Approach

  1. Gaps: compute lead(aggregate_version) OVER (PARTITION BY aggregate_id ORDER BY aggregate_version) in a subquery, then filter next_version <> aggregate_version + 1 in the outer query. Window functions are evaluated after WHERE, GROUP BY and HAVING and before the outer ORDER BY and LIMIT, so the predicate cannot sit in the same WHERE clause and PostgreSQL 16 has no QUALIFY.
  2. Say what the seven-day filter does to the answer: it truncates every partition, so the first row per aggregate has no predecessor inside the window and a hole spanning the boundary is invisible. Widen the window, or join to resource.version as the authority for the true maximum.
  3. Running total: SELECT date_trunc('day', created_at) AS d, count() AS n, sum(count()) OVER (ORDER BY date_trunc('day', created_at) ROWS UNBOUNDED PRECEDING). An aggregate inside a window call is legal because grouping runs before windowing. The grouping key is unique per row here so ROWS and RANGE agree, but write the frame anyway — over ungrouped rows with tied timestamps the default RANGE frame pulls in every peer row and the total jumps.
  4. Newest per aggregate: DISTINCT ON (aggregate_id) ... ORDER BY aggregate_id, aggregate_version DESC is the cheap PostgreSQL-only form when an index matches that order; row_number() OVER (PARTITION BY aggregate_id ORDER BY aggregate_version DESC) = 1 is the portable form and needs a subquery for the same evaluation-order reason as the gap query.

Follow-up

  • Relay failover redelivers events. Does a duplicate break the gap query, and how would you detect one from this table alone?
  • Turn the gap check into a continuous monitor rather than a query someone runs after an incident. What does it watch?

How do you approach the boot-up sequence in a system-level environment?

Medium · Technical & Domain Expertise

Approach

  1. Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer contains.
  2. State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
  3. Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.
  4. Work from the requirement backwards to the design.

Follow-up

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

What are the key differences between Salesforce Lightning and classic development models?

Medium · Technical & Domain Expertise

Approach

  1. Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer contains.
  2. State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
  3. Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.
  4. Work from the requirement backwards to the design.

Follow-up

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

Explain a time you had to debug a complex system integration issue.

Medium · Technical & Domain Expertise

Approach

  1. Establish what changed and when, before forming any theory.
  2. Pick a bisection that eliminates candidates whichever way it turns out.
  3. Check the instrumentation before believing the symptom.
  4. Separate the trigger from the cause; the deploy is rarely the bug.

Follow-up

  • What would you look at first, and what would it rule out?
  • How would you tell a cause from a coincidence here?

Suggested practice checklist

Built from the rounds and topics InterSources candidates report.

Day 1 — Map the InterSources loop

  • Write out the reported sequence: Initial Contact, Technical Deep-Dive 1, Technical Deep-Dive 2, Business-Focused Discussion, Final Panel Decisions, Offer Discussion.
  • For each round, write one sentence on what it is judging, from the description above, and mark the one you are least ready for.

Deliverable: A one-page map of the 6 reported rounds, with the weakest marked.

Day 2 — Work Device Drivers

  • Spend the session on Device Drivers, which InterSources candidates report being tested on.
  • Write one worked example in Device Drivers and time yourself on it.

Deliverable: One timed worked example in Device Drivers.

Day 3 — Work Software Engineering

  • Spend the session on Software Engineering, which InterSources candidates report being tested on.
  • Write one worked example in Software Engineering and time yourself on it.

Deliverable: One timed worked example in Software Engineering.

Day 4 — Work Low-Level Programming (x86)

  • Spend the session on Low-Level Programming (x86), which InterSources candidates report being tested on.
  • Write one worked example in Low-Level Programming (x86) and time yourself on it.

Deliverable: One timed worked example in Low-Level Programming (x86).

Day 5 — Answer out loud: Technical & Domain Expertise

  • Answer aloud, timed: Can you describe your experience with x86 low-level programming or device drivers?
  • Answer aloud, timed: How do you approach the boot-up sequence in a system-level environment?

Deliverable: Spoken answers to 2 reported Technical & Domain Expertise question(s), under time.

Day 6 — Answer out loud: Behavioral & Business Acumen

  • Answer aloud, timed: Describe a time you had to explain a complex technical issue to a non-technical stakeholder.
  • Answer aloud, timed: How do you prioritize tasks when you have multiple competing deadlines?

Deliverable: Spoken answers to 2 reported Behavioral & Business Acumen question(s), under time.

Day 7 — Dry run for InterSources

  • Run one full mock under time, then write down the two questions you most want to ask your interviewers.

Deliverable: A completed timed mock and two questions to ask.

Behavioural preparation

Behavioural rounds judge the decision you made and what it cost.

Can you describe your experience with x86 low-level programming or device drivers?

Medium · Technical & Domain Expertise

Approach

  1. Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
  2. State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
  3. Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
  4. Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.

Follow-up

  • What would you do differently if you ran that again?
  • How did you know your change caused the improvement?

How do you optimize BIOS performance or resolve low-level hardware conflicts?

Medium · Technical & Domain Expertise

Approach

  1. Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
  2. State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
  3. Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
  4. Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.

Follow-up

  • What would you do differently if you ran that again?
  • How did you know your change caused the improvement?

Describe a time you had to explain a complex technical issue to a non-technical stakeholder.

Medium · Behavioral & Business Acumen

Approach

  1. Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
  2. State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
  3. Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
  4. Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.

Follow-up

  • What would you do differently if you ran that again?
  • How did you know your change caused the improvement?

How do you prioritize tasks when you have multiple competing deadlines?

Medium · Behavioral & Business Acumen

Approach

  1. Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
  2. State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
  3. Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
  4. Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.

Follow-up

  • What would you do differently if you ran that again?
  • How did you know your change caused the improvement?

Tell us about a project where you had to pivot your strategy due to changing requirements.

Medium · Behavioral & Business Acumen

Approach

  1. Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
  2. State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
  3. Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
  4. Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.

Follow-up

  • What would you do differently if you ran that again?
  • How did you know your change caused the improvement?

How do you handle feedback from a client or a project lead?

Medium · Behavioral & Business Acumen

Approach

  1. Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
  2. State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
  3. Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
  4. Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.

Follow-up

  • What would you do differently if you ran that again?
  • How did you know your change caused the improvement?