cswork / libraryOpen practice workspace

Interview guides · ReachMobi

ReachMobi Software Engineer Interview Guide

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

The 60-second brief

As a Software Engineer at ReachMobi, you are at the core of a high-growth environment focused on mobile engagement and digital content delivery. Your role is not just about writing code; it is about building scalable, efficient systems that handle significant traffic and provide seamless experiences for a global user base. You will be expected to bridge the gap between complex backend architecture and user-facing performance. This position offers the opportunity to influence the technical roadmap of products that prioritize speed, reliability, and innovation. You will collaborate with cross-functional teams to solve challenging engineering problems, often involving third-party integrations and data-intensive workflows.

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

Focus areas

  • Software Engineering (General)
  • Web Application Development
  • REST APIs

The ReachMobi interview process

ReachMobi candidates report 4 rounds over 3-5 weeks. The stages below are what candidates describe, not a published process.

High-Level Screening

Initial assessment to establish baseline qualifications.

What to demonstrate

  • Initial assessment to establish baseline qualifications
  • Depth in Software Engineering (General)

How to prepare

  • Answer aloud and timed: Can you walk me through your process for integrating a third-party REST API?
  • Answer aloud and timed: How do you ensure your code remains performant under high load?

Technical Assessment

Several layers of technical evaluations to assess skills.

What to demonstrate

  • Several layers of technical evaluations to assess skills
  • Depth in Software Engineering (General)

How to prepare

  • Answer aloud and timed: Describe a time you had to debug a complex system issue. What was your approach?
  • Answer aloud and timed: How do you approach choosing the right data structure for a specific problem?

Practical Application Phase

At least one phase focused on practical application of skills.

What to demonstrate

  • At least one phase focused on practical application of skills
  • Depth in Software Engineering (General)

How to prepare

  • Answer aloud and timed: What is your strategy for unit testing and ensuring code reliability?
  • Answer aloud and timed: Tell me about a time you had to explain a complex technical concept to a non-technical stakeholder.

Final Review

Final assessment to review overall fit and qualifications.

What to demonstrate

  • Final assessment to review overall fit and qualifications
  • Depth in Software Engineering (General)

How to prepare

  • Answer aloud and timed: How do you handle feedback on your code during a peer review?
  • Answer aloud and timed: Describe a situation where you had to pivot your approach due to changing project requirements.

Where candidates lose points

Prioritize Clarity

When explaining your technical decisions, use the "why, what, how" framework to ensure your interviewer follows your logic.

Own Your Mistakes

If you realize a flaw in your code during an interview, point it out yourself and explain how you would fix it. This demonstrates maturity and growth.

Context is King

Always ask clarifying questions before diving into a coding task to ensure you understand the business context and constraints.

Prepare Your Portfolio

Have one or two complex projects ready to discuss in depth, focusing on the challenges you faced and how you overcame them.

Questions & practice

How do you ensure your code remains performant under high load?

Medium · Technical & Problem Solving

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?

How do you approach choosing the right data structure for a specific problem?

Medium · Technical & Problem Solving

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?

What is your strategy for unit testing and ensuring code reliability?

Medium · Technical & Problem Solving

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?

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?

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?

Can you walk me through your process for integrating a third-party REST API?

Medium · Technical & Problem Solving

Approach

  1. Say who the caller is and what they do when the call fails halfway.
  2. Define the identity of a request so a retry cannot double-apply it.
  3. Separate accepted, pending, failed and confirmed; they are different facts.
  4. Design the error taxonomy before the success shape; callers branch on it.

Follow-up

  • What happens if the caller retries after a timeout?
  • How does a client discover it is on an old version of this contract?

Specify the outbound webhook contract a customer endpoint can verify

Medium · webhooks · hmac · at-least-once

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

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

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?

Listing latency scales with page size, not with filters

Easy · n+1 · latency · query batching

The tenant listing endpoint reads resource filtered by tenant_id and status, ordered by updated_at DESC, and returns each row plus the owner's display name from app_user and the actor of that resource's latest resource_revision. p99 is 55 ms at 10 rows per page and 1.4 s at 200. Database telemetry shows 401 statements per request, each under 1 ms, and nothing in the slow-query log. Diagnose the cause and give the fix, stating the statement count per request and the p99 you expect afterwards.

Approach

  1. Read the counters before forming a theory. 401 statements for 200 rows is one driver query plus two per row, and sub-millisecond execution with an empty slow-query log rules out a bad plan. The time is round trips, which is why it is invisible in every per-query metric and scales with rows returned rather than with filter selectivity.
  2. Name the two per-row statements from their normalised text: a single-row app_user lookup by user_id, and a resource_revision lookup by resource_id ordered by version DESC LIMIT 1. Confirm by dropping those two response fields and watching the statement count fall to one. That locates the calls in the serialisation layer, not the repository.
  3. Check that the arithmetic accounts for the whole gap. Measure one round trip to the replica in isolation; 400 trips at roughly 3 ms of network plus 0.2 ms of execution is about 1.3 s on top of a 55 ms baseline, which matches. If the multiplication had fallen short, the N+1 would only be part of the story and you would keep looking.
  4. Batch both lookups. Collect owner_user_ids and resource_ids from the driver query, then issue WHERE tenant_id = $1 AND user_id = ANY($2) for the users, and PostgreSQL's SELECT DISTINCT ON (resource_id) ... WHERE resource_id = ANY($2) ORDER BY resource_id, version DESC for the latest revision, which the UNIQUE (resource_id, version) index serves directly. On an engine without DISTINCT ON, use a lateral join or a row_number window. Three statements per request at any page size.

Follow-up

  • The page size is capped at 200 today. What breaks first if it is raised to 2,000, and is it still this bug?
  • How do you stop the next N+1 from reaching production, given that no individual query is slow and the endpoint's tests pass?

Suggested practice checklist

Built from the rounds and topics ReachMobi candidates report.

Day 1 — Map the ReachMobi loop

  • Write out the reported sequence: High-Level Screening, Technical Assessment, Practical Application Phase, Final Review.
  • 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 4 reported rounds, with the weakest marked.

Day 2 — Work Software Engineering (General)

  • Spend the session on Software Engineering (General), which ReachMobi 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 Web Application Development

  • Spend the session on Web Application Development, which ReachMobi candidates report being tested on.
  • Write one worked example in Web Application Development and time yourself on it.

Deliverable: One timed worked example in Web Application Development.

Day 4 — Work REST APIs

  • Spend the session on REST APIs, which ReachMobi candidates report being tested on.
  • Write one worked example in REST APIs and time yourself on it.

Deliverable: One timed worked example in REST APIs.

Day 5 — Answer out loud: Technical & Problem Solving

  • Answer aloud, timed: Can you walk me through your process for integrating a third-party REST API?
  • Answer aloud, timed: How do you ensure your code remains performant under high load?

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

Day 6 — Answer out loud: Behavioral & Communication

  • Answer aloud, timed: Tell me about a time you had to explain a complex technical concept to a non-technical stakeholder.
  • Answer aloud, timed: How do you handle feedback on your code during a peer review?

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

Day 7 — Dry run for ReachMobi

  • 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.

Describe a time you had to debug a complex system issue. What was your approach?

Medium · Technical & Problem Solving

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 me about a time you had to explain a complex technical concept to a non-technical stakeholder.

Medium · Behavioral & Communication

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 on your code during a peer review?

Medium · Behavioral & Communication

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 situation where you had to pivot your approach due to changing project requirements.

Medium · Behavioral & Communication

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?

What motivates you to work in a fast-paced, product-driven environment?

Medium · Behavioral & Communication

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 balance the need for speed with the need for technical debt management?

Medium · Behavioral & Communication

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?