cswork / libraryOpen practice workspace

Interview guides · Long Wave

Long Wave Software Engineer Interview Guide

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

The 60-second brief

As a Software Engineer at Long Wave, you play a vital role in designing, developing, and maintaining sophisticated software systems that support critical defense, aerospace, and engineering programs. Your work directly impacts complex system architectures, operational efficiency, and mission success for clients who rely on high-reliability solutions. Operating at the intersection of software development and rigorous systems engineering, you will tackle technical challenges that require both creative problem-solving and disciplined execution. The role involves contributing to diverse engineering initiatives ranging from core software implementation to comprehensive systems administration, modeling, and analysis.

This guide is scoped to a Software Engineer candidate at Long Wave.

Focus areas

  • Software Engineering (general)
  • RF / Radio Frequency Engineering (RF Analysis Engineer)
  • Antenna Design Engineering (Antenna Design Engineer)

The Long Wave interview process

Long Wave candidates report 3 rounds over 3-5 weeks. The stages below are what candidates describe, not a published process.

Initial Screening

Conversation with a human resources representative to discuss background, interest in the role, and qualifications.

What to demonstrate

  • Conversation with a human resources representative to discuss background, interest in the role, and qualifications
  • Depth in Software Engineering (general)

How to prepare

  • Be able to walk your CV end to end in two minutes, and say why this company specifically.
  • Have your salary expectations, notice period and location constraints ready, and ask for the rest of the loop in writing.

Technical Evaluations

Involves discussions or coding assessments with engineering staff or management.

What to demonstrate

  • Involves discussions or coding assessments with engineering staff or management
  • Depth in Software Engineering (general)

How to prepare

  • Answer aloud and timed: Can you write a program to solve an abstract logic puzzle that tests basic syntax and structural thinking?
  • Answer aloud and timed: What is it you want to do here?

Face-to-Face Meetings

Final meetings with engineering teams and leadership, focusing on technical problem-solving and informal alignment.

What to demonstrate

  • Final meetings with engineering teams and leadership
  • Focusing on technical problem-solving and informal alignment

How to prepare

  • Answer aloud and timed: Can you walk through your background, interests, and career goals?
  • Work Software Engineering (general) until you can explain it without notes

Where candidates lose points

Practice thinking out loud

During abstract programming and logic questions, interviewers want to hear your reasoning process; never solve puzzles in complete silence.

Brush up on fundamentals

Do not neglect basic syntax and fundamental programming constructs, as simple trivia and coding checks are common components of the evaluation.

Show genuine curiosity

Express clear enthusiasm for the specific engineering domains and programs Long Wave supports, as interviewers appreciate candidates who care about the mission.

Be ready for informal dialogue

Expect some conversations to feel relaxed and conversational; use these moments to build rapport while remaining professional.

Questions & practice

Using pseudo-code, can you write a method to clear out matching colored blocks in a bejeweled style puzzle gam

Medium · Problem-Solving and Coding

Using pseudo-code, can you write a method to clear out matching colored blocks in a bejeweled style puzzle game?

Approach

  1. Restate the input: its shape, its size, and what is guaranteed about it.
  2. Name the brute-force solution and its complexity before improving on it.
  3. Choose the data structure from the access pattern, not from familiarity.
  4. State the target complexity and say which constraint rules the naive version out.

Follow-up

  • How does this change if the input no longer fits in memory?
  • What is the worst case, and how likely is it on real data?

Can you write a program to solve an abstract logic puzzle that tests basic syntax and structural thinking?

Medium · Problem-Solving and Coding

Approach

  1. Restate the input: its shape, its size, and what is guaranteed about it.
  2. Name the brute-force solution and its complexity before improving on it.
  3. Choose the data structure from the access pattern, not from familiarity.
  4. State the target complexity and say which constraint rules the naive version out.

Follow-up

  • How does this change if the input no longer fits in memory?
  • What is the worst case, and how likely is it on real data?

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?

Write the update path that detects a concurrent edit

Medium · optimistic concurrency · transactional outbox · audit history

resource carries version INT NOT NULL DEFAULT 1. resource_revision holds revision_id, resource_id, version, actor_user_id, change_kind, patch JSONB, request_id, created_at with UNIQUE (resource_id, version). outbox_event holds aggregate_type, aggregate_id, aggregate_version, event_type, payload, status. A PUT carries the version the client read. Write the exact statements for the single transaction that applies the edit, records the revision and enqueues 'resource.updated', and give the handler's branch on zero affected rows. Then say what PostgreSQL 16 does under READ COMMITTED when two of these updates hit one row at once.

Approach

  1. One transaction, three writes, no network call inside it: UPDATE resource SET title = $3, version = version + 1, updated_at = now() WHERE resource_id = $1 AND tenant_id = $4 AND version = $2; then INSERT the resource_revision row at version $2 + 1; then INSERT the outbox_event row at the same aggregate_version. The event goes to a table rather than a broker because no transaction spans both.
  2. Branch on the affected-row count before doing anything else. Zero has three causes — stale version, wrong tenant, row gone — so re-read once and map to 409 carrying the current version, or 404 for an id outside the caller's tenant, which also stops the endpoint confirming that another tenant's id exists.
  3. State the engine behaviour instead of assuming it. Under READ COMMITTED the second UPDATE blocks on the row lock, and when the first commits PostgreSQL re-evaluates the WHERE clause against the newly committed row, so the version predicate now fails and the statement reports zero rows. Under REPEATABLE READ the identical collision raises SQLSTATE 40001 instead, so the handler must fold both shapes into one conflict response.
  4. Keep UNIQUE (resource_id, version) even though the predicate already serialises writers. It is what makes a lost update unwritable if any other path ever reaches the revision table, and it converts a logic bug into 23505 rather than into a silently missing history row.

Follow-up

  • A client sends the version it read ten minutes ago and the resource has moved three versions. What is in your 409 so it can resolve the conflict without a full re-fetch?
  • Two editors, two disjoint fields, no overlap. Does your answer still refuse the second write, and should it?

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

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

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?

Do you have experience with Cameo Systems Modeler?

Medium · Domain and Systems Modeling

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 is it you want to do here?

Medium · Cultural and Personal Alignment

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?

Can you walk through your background, interests, and career goals?

Medium · Cultural and Personal Alignment

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?

One customer endpoint stalls deliveries to every other destination

Medium · bulkhead · timeouts · saturation

The egress service delivers about 1.5k webhooks/second across 40,000 destinations, with a per-destination concurrency cap of 4 and a 10-second connect-plus-read timeout. Throughput falls to 300/second, queue depth climbs, and p99 delivery latency for unaffected destinations goes from 200 ms to minutes, while the error rate barely moves. One tenant holds 900 destination rows whose URLs share a hostname that now answers in 9.5 seconds. Explain the mechanism with the arithmetic, then give the containment in the order you would apply it.

Approach

  1. Look at saturation before errors. A flat error rate with collapsing throughput says nothing is failing, things are waiting, so the first signal to pull is in-flight request count or pool wait time rather than the error counter. This is the distinction that decides the whole investigation.
  2. Group in-flight work by resolved host, not by destination id. The cap is keyed per destination row, so 900 rows sharing one hostname buy 3,600 concurrent slots against a single host, each held for 9.5 seconds. The bulkhead was never a bulkhead for that host, and grouping by the wrong dimension is why the dashboard looked healthy.
  3. Do the arithmetic in both directions. Required concurrency is arrival rate times latency, so 1.5k/second at 200 ms needs about 300 in flight, which is entirely consumed by 3,600 slow slots; conversely whatever concurrency is left sustains rate equals concurrency divided by 9.5 seconds, which is the 300/second you are seeing. Matching both numbers is what promotes this from a plausible story to the mechanism.
  4. Explain why the circuit breaker never helped. It opens on consecutive failures, and a 9.5-second response inside a 10-second timeout is a success. Slow is not failing, so an error-rate breaker cannot see this; you need a slow-call ratio, a deadline propagated from the caller's remaining budget, or a concurrency limiter.

Follow-up

  • The host recovers to 80 ms. How long does the queue take to drain, and what does the drain do to the recovered host?
  • Where should the 10-second timeout number actually come from?

Suggested practice checklist

Built from the rounds and topics Long Wave candidates report.

Day 1 — Map the Long Wave loop

  • Write out the reported sequence: Initial Screening, Technical Evaluations, Face-to-Face Meetings.
  • 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 3 reported rounds, with the weakest marked.

Day 2 — Work Software Engineering (general)

  • Spend the session on Software Engineering (general), which Long Wave candidates report being tested on.
  • Write one worked example in Software Engineering (general) and time yourself on it.

Deliverable: One timed worked example in Software Engineering (general).

Day 3 — Work RF / Radio Frequency Engineering (RF Analysis Engineer)

  • Spend the session on RF / Radio Frequency Engineering (RF Analysis Engineer), which Long Wave candidates report being tested on.
  • Write one worked example in RF / Radio Frequency Engineering (RF Analysis Engineer) and time yourself on it.

Deliverable: One timed worked example in RF / Radio Frequency Engineering (RF Analysis Engineer).

Day 4 — Work Antenna Design Engineering (Antenna Design Engineer)

  • Spend the session on Antenna Design Engineering (Antenna Design Engineer), which Long Wave candidates report being tested on.
  • Write one worked example in Antenna Design Engineering (Antenna Design Engineer) and time yourself on it.

Deliverable: One timed worked example in Antenna Design Engineering (Antenna Design Engineer).

Day 5 — Answer out loud: Domain and Systems Modeling

  • Answer aloud, timed: Do you have experience with Cameo Systems Modeler?

Deliverable: Spoken answers to 1 reported Domain and Systems Modeling question(s), under time.

Day 6 — Answer out loud: Problem-Solving and Coding

  • Answer aloud, timed: Using pseudo-code, can you write a method to clear out matching colored blocks in a bejeweled style puzzle game?
  • Answer aloud, timed: Can you write a program to solve an abstract logic puzzle that tests basic syntax and structural thinking?

Deliverable: Spoken answers to 2 reported Problem-Solving and Coding question(s), under time.

Day 7 — Answer out loud: Cultural and Personal Alignment

  • Answer aloud, timed: What is it you want to do here?
  • Answer aloud, timed: Can you walk through your background, interests, and career goals?

Deliverable: Spoken answers to 2 reported Cultural and Personal Alignment question(s), under time.

Behavioural preparation

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

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

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

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?

Turn a code review disagreement into a decision

Easy · code review · optimistic concurrency · communication

A colleague's change updates a row with UPDATE resource SET version = version + 1 WHERE resource_id = $1 AND version = $2 and treats an affected-row count of zero as a successful no-op. You read that as a silently lost update; they think returning 200 is friendlier to clients than returning a conflict. Describe how you have handled a review disagreement of this shape: what goes in the comment, when you leave the thread, and who decides. Then write the comment you would leave here, in under 80 words.

Approach

  1. Sort the disagreement before writing anything. A silently discarded write is a correctness claim about data; the choice between 409 and 412 is taste. Only the first justifies blocking a merge, and saying which one you are doing is most of the value of the comment.
  2. Make the claim reproducible in the comment itself with an interleaving rather than a principle: A reads version 7, B reads version 7, B commits version 8, A's predicate matches zero rows, A is told it succeeded and A's edit is gone.
  3. Offer the alternative with its cost attached: return 409 carrying the current version and the revision that won, so the client can re-read and re-apply. Note that automatic retry is not the fix, because a retry re-reads the winner's state and reapplies an intent formed against data that no longer exists.
  4. Apply an escalation rule you can state: two round trips on the thread, then a call, and the service's owner decides rather than the reviewer. A reviewer who cannot be overruled is a bottleneck with extra steps.

Follow-up

  • Where would you put the test that fails if someone reintroduces the swallowed zero rowcount?
  • The author says clients cannot handle a 409. How do you check whether that is true?

Estimate work you have never done and defend the range

Hard · estimation · backfills · expand-contract

You are asked to estimate a change you have never attempted: add a column to a 100-million-row table, populate it, move reads across, and drop the old shape. Give a range with the assumptions that generate it, including batch size, the signal your backfill throttles on, and wall-clock hours, and name the three unknowns that would move the number most. Then describe a real estimate you gave under comparable ignorance: how you expressed its uncertainty, what you committed to, and how wrong you turned out to be.

Approach

  1. Decompose into independently deployable steps before estimating anything: add the column nullable, write both shapes, backfill in batches, verify, move reads, stop writing the old shape, drop it. That is four deploys spread over days, and the calendar estimate is dominated by them rather than by the loop's runtime.
  2. Do the arithmetic aloud for the part that has arithmetic in it: batch size times number of batches times per-batch duration, at a write rate the primary can absorb alongside roughly 1.2k writes per second of production traffic. The loop is throttled by replication lag and lock waits, not by how fast it can issue statements.
  3. Price the schema step by its lock rather than its statement duration. In PostgreSQL an ALTER TABLE taking ACCESS EXCLUSIVE waits for every open transaction on that table while later queries queue behind it, so a millisecond change issued during a thirty-second analytics query stalls that table for thirty seconds. Adding a nullable column with a non-volatile default avoids a rewrite from version 11; a new index wants CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY, which cannot run inside a transaction block and leaves an invalid index behind if it fails.
  4. Express the answer as a range whose endpoints each trace to a stated assumption, then name the cheapest experiment that collapses it, which is almost always running one real batch against the real table and multiplying.

Follow-up

  • How do you verify the backfill genuinely finished, given rows written by production traffic while it ran?
  • Where does the backfill resume from after a worker is killed mid-batch, and what makes that resume point trustworthy?