cswork / libraryOpen practice workspace

Interview guides · Saab Group

Saab Group Software Engineer Interview Guide

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

The 60-second brief

As a Software Engineer at Saab Group, you are at the intersection of high-stakes engineering and cutting-edge defense technology. You will be tasked with building robust, secure, and scalable systems that support critical infrastructure, ranging from DevSecOps pipelines for EdgeRunner platforms to advanced software solutions for space-based applications. Your work directly impacts how Saab Group delivers reliable, real-time data and mission-critical capabilities to clients globally. This role is not just about writing code; it is about engineering reliability into environments where failure is not an option. You will collaborate with cross-functional teams to solve complex problems in high-performance computing, security, and systems integration.

This guide is scoped to a Software Engineer candidate at Saab Group.

Focus areas

  • DevSecOps
  • Edge Computing
  • Systems Engineering

The Saab Group interview process

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

Initial Screening

The first step involves an initial review of the candidate's application and qualifications.

What to demonstrate

  • The first step involves an initial review of the candidate's application and qualifications
  • Depth in DevSecOps

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 Deep Dives

Candidates will participate in in-depth technical interviews to assess their skills and knowledge.

What to demonstrate

  • Candidates will participate in in-depth technical interviews to assess their skills and knowledge
  • Depth in DevSecOps

How to prepare

  • Answer aloud and timed: Describe a time you had to debug a complex, distributed system.
  • Answer aloud and timed: What strategies do you use to ensure code maintainability in long-term, high-complexity projects?

Behavioral Assessments

Interviews focused on evaluating the candidate's behavioral fit and teamwork capabilities.

What to demonstrate

  • Interviews focused on evaluating the candidate's behavioral fit and teamwork capabilities
  • Depth in DevSecOps

How to prepare

  • Prepare three examples from your own work, each with a decision you made and an outcome you can quantify.
  • Re-read the description of the behavioral assessments above and write down what you would ask to confirm before it.

Final Interviews

The concluding round of interviews that may include both technical and behavioral evaluations.

What to demonstrate

  • The concluding round of interviews that may include both technical and behavioral evaluations
  • Depth in DevSecOps

How to prepare

  • Answer aloud and timed: How do you manage competing priorities when working on multiple engineering initiatives?
  • Answer aloud and timed: Give an example of a time you took ownership of a project that was failing or stalled.

Where candidates lose points

Understand the mission

Research Saab Group’s current projects and core values. Showing a genuine interest in the impact of your work is highly valued.

Be transparent about trade-offs

When discussing technical decisions, always explain the "why" behind your choices. Acknowledge the downsides of your approach to show maturity.

Prepare for behavioral questions

Use the STAR method (Situation, Task, Action, Result) to keep your answers structured and impactful.

Do not underestimate the importance of security in your answers

Even when asked about general software design, mention how security considerations influence your decisions.

Questions & practice

What strategies do you use to ensure code maintainability in long-term, high-complexity projects?

Medium · Technical and Domain Expertise

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?

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

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

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?

Archive a resource graph without breaking live references or recursing

Medium · graph traversal · topological order · tenant isolation

Resources reference other resources within a tenant; for the largest tenant the reference table holds up to 2,000,000 nodes and 8,000,000 edges. Archiving a resource must archive everything reachable from it that nothing outside the set still references, refuse when a live external referrer exists, and terminate when references form cycles, which they legitimately do. Produce the archive order and the refusal list, targeting O(V+E). Say what stops the traversal crossing a tenant boundary, and why recursion is the wrong control structure at this size.

Approach

  1. Load the subgraph with the tenant predicate on both endpoints of the edge, not only on the side you started from. Scoping the left table alone is the classic cross-tenant leak: one mis-entered edge then pulls another tenant's resources into the traversal and, worse, into the archive.
  2. Traverse iteratively with an explicit stack. A 2,000,000-node graph can hold a chain deep enough to exhaust a native stack in the low tens of thousands of frames, and that failure is a process crash rather than an error you can return.
  3. Treat cycles as data rather than corruption: compute strongly connected components with Tarjan in O(V+E) using its own explicit stack, then condense. The condensation is a DAG, so a topological order over it gives the archive order, and every member of a component archives in one transaction because no order within a cycle is valid.
  4. Decide refusals with reverse edges. A candidate is archivable only if every in-edge originates inside the candidate set, so build the transpose or count in-degrees restricted to the visited set, and emit each blocked resource with the id of the external referrer, which is the only part of the answer an operator can act on.

Follow-up

  • The graph is read in one query and the archive writes a minute later. What can change in between, and how do you make the write safe?
  • The candidate set is 400,000 resources. Is that one transaction, and if not, what does a half-finished archive look like to a reader?

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?

Stop tag and share joins from fanning out a page

Medium · join fan-out · semi-joins · many-to-many

resource_tag is (resource_id, tag_id) with PK (resource_id, tag_id); resource_share is (resource_id, shared_with_user_id, permission). The tagged-and-shared listing inner-joins resource to both, filters tenant_id, tag_id = ANY($2) and shared_with_user_id = $3, orders by updated_at DESC and takes 50. Pages come back with fewer than 50 distinct resources and the total in the header is far too high. Explain the row multiplication, rewrite both the page query and the count query so each is correct, and name the index each one needs. PostgreSQL 16.

Approach

  1. Do the arithmetic against the predicates that are actually there. An inner join emits one row per matching child row, and both joins are filtered: tag_id = ANY($2) admits only the requested tags, shared_with_user_id = $3 admits one user's share rows. So a resource holding three of the requested tags and shared with $3 once yields three rows, not one — the multiplier is its count of matching tags times its share rows for that single user, and that second factor is 1 unless the table admits duplicate (resource_id, shared_with_user_id) pairs. LIMIT 50 then limits rows rather than resources, and COUNT(*) counts pairs — the header is the product, not the population.
  2. Reject DISTINCT as the fix. It deduplicates after the product has been built, so the planner must materialise and sort the fanned-out set before the LIMIT can apply, and it leaves any SUM or AVG in the same select list wrong.
  3. Rewrite both filters as semi-joins, keeping resource as the only row source: AND EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM resource_tag rt WHERE rt.resource_id = r.resource_id AND rt.tag_id = ANY($2)) and the same shape against resource_share. A semi-join stops at the first match per resource and preserves the driving index order, so ORDER BY updated_at DESC, resource_id DESC LIMIT 50 still stops after 50 rows.
  4. Count with the same predicates and no join at all: SELECT count(*) FROM resource r WHERE r.tenant_id = $1 AND r.status = 'active' AND EXISTS (...) AND EXISTS (...). Nothing multiplies a resource, so the number is the population.

Follow-up

  • The filter changes from 'any of these tags' to 'all of these tags'. Rewrite it and state what it costs relative to the ANY form.
  • A resource can be shared with the same user twice under different permissions. Does your count change, and should it?

How do you approach testing for systems that require high availability and reliability?

Medium · Technical and Domain Expertise

Approach

  1. Fix the scope first: who calls this, how often, and what they do when it fails.
  2. Name the read and write paths separately; they rarely have the same bottleneck.
  3. Choose a partition key and say what query it makes expensive.
  4. State the consistency you need, and where you are willing to be stale.

Follow-up

  • What breaks first when traffic grows ten times?
  • How does this behave when that dependency is down for an hour?

Design the async export contract a client can resume safely

Hard · async operations · idempotency · leases

A tenant asks for a CSV of every resource. The work runs for minutes on the worker fleet through a job_run row carrying a lease, an attempt count and a dedupe_key, far past the edge's 400 ms budget. Callers are a browser that polls and a script that walks away and checks later. Specify what the submit call returns, the operation resource and its states, how a duplicate submit is handled, how a client learns about completion, what cancellation means given that a lease can expire mid-run, and how the result is fetched and when it expires.

Approach

  1. Split the API in two. Submit returns 202 with an operation id and a location to poll, and never blocks on the work. The operation is a real resource with its own lifecycle - queued, running, succeeded, failed, cancelled - plus attempt, a monotonic progress figure, and a terminal error drawn from the same code taxonomy the synchronous endpoints use, so a client needs one error vocabulary rather than two.
  2. Deduplicate at submit using job_run.dedupe_key, unique over (job_type, dedupe_key) while status is 'queued' or 'running': a repeat submit of the same logical export returns 200 with the existing operation instead of 202 with a new one, and the partial index deliberately permits a legitimate re-run once the first has finished. Pair it with the request's idempotency key so an HTTP-level retry of the submit is exact rather than merely similar.
  3. Tell the poller how to poll: Retry-After on the polling response, a minimum interval enforced at the edge, and a documented maximum lifetime after which an operation is reaped. Polling is the contract of record; the webhook is the fast path, and both must lead to the same terminal state, so a client that receives the completion event and then polls anyway sees no contradiction.
  4. Be exact about cancellation. A cancel request records intent; it cannot stop work already executing. The handler reads the flag at checkpoints, and because a lease expires on a clock that cannot distinguish a dead worker from a slow one, a second copy may start after the cancel was recorded - so the handler re-reads the flag immediately after claiming the lease. 'cancelled' becomes terminal only when no lease is outstanding; reporting it earlier shows a client a stopped job while a worker is still writing output.

Follow-up

  • An operation has said 'running' for 40 minutes and the worker is gone. What does the client see, and which columns in job_run decide that?
  • Two tenants each submit 50 exports at once. What in this contract stops one of them delaying the other?

One log partition stops advancing while the others drain

Easy · poison message · head-of-line blocking · consumer lag

Search results for a subset of tenants are hours stale; the rest are current. The projection consumer reports lag of zero on 15 of 16 partitions and 400,000 on one. Its error rate is flat and its CPU is idle. outbox_event has no pending rows older than a second, so the relay has published everything it holds. Identify the mechanism, give the ordered checks, and state what you do in the first ten minutes versus what you change permanently.

Approach

  1. Read the lag distribution first. A slow consumer lags everywhere; zero on fifteen partitions and 400,000 on one is not throughput. Idle CPU on the stuck partition means the consumer is not advancing its offset at all, which points at one message it cannot get past rather than at a rate problem.
  2. Exonerate the producer before touching the consumer. No pending outbox rows older than a second means the relay published, so the event exists in the log. This separates never sent from sent and never applied, which are different code paths and usually different owners.
  3. Read the message at the stuck offset and the handler's log lines for its event_id. A flat error rate with no progress has two explanations and you must distinguish them: the handler is throwing and the retry loop is swallowing it, or the handler is blocking on something and never returning. Idle CPU with no error lines favours the second.
  4. Mitigate before diagnosing further. Move the offending event to a dead-letter store and commit the offset past it. Adding consumers does nothing here, because a partition is consumed by exactly one member of the group, and the blast radius is every aggregate hashed to that partition, not only the aggregate that produced the bad event.

Follow-up

  • The dead-lettered event carried aggregate_version 7 and the projection had applied 6. What must the replay do differently if 8 and 9 landed in the meantime?
  • How do you show staleness to the user while the partition is behind, given the API already returns the projection's watermark?

Suggested practice checklist

Built from the rounds and topics Saab Group candidates report.

Day 1 — Map the Saab Group loop

  • Write out the reported sequence: Initial Screening, Technical Deep Dives, Behavioral Assessments, Final Interviews.
  • 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 DevSecOps

  • Spend the session on DevSecOps, which Saab Group candidates report being tested on.
  • Write one worked example in DevSecOps and time yourself on it.

Deliverable: One timed worked example in DevSecOps.

Day 3 — Work Edge Computing

  • Spend the session on Edge Computing, which Saab Group candidates report being tested on.
  • Write one worked example in Edge Computing and time yourself on it.

Deliverable: One timed worked example in Edge Computing.

Day 4 — Work Systems Engineering

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

Deliverable: One timed worked example in Systems Engineering.

Day 5 — Answer out loud: Technical and Domain Expertise

  • Answer aloud, timed: Explain your experience with DevSecOps principles and how you integrate security into the CI/CD pipeline.
  • Answer aloud, timed: How do you handle resource constraints when developing software for edge computing platforms?

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

Day 6 — Answer out loud: Behavioral and Leadership

  • Answer aloud, timed: Describe a time you disagreed with a technical decision made by a peer or manager; how did you resolve it?
  • Answer aloud, timed: How do you manage competing priorities when working on multiple engineering initiatives?

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

Day 7 — Dry run for Saab Group

  • 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.

Explain your experience with DevSecOps principles and how you integrate security into the CI/CD pipeline.

Medium · Technical and 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 handle resource constraints when developing software for edge computing platforms?

Medium · Technical and 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 debug a complex, distributed system.

Medium · Technical and 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 disagreed with a technical decision made by a peer or manager; how did you resolve it?

Medium · Behavioral and Leadership

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 manage competing priorities when working on multiple engineering initiatives?

Medium · Behavioral and Leadership

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?

Give an example of a time you took ownership of a project that was failing or stalled.

Medium · Behavioral and Leadership

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 communicate complex technical concepts to non-technical stakeholders?

Medium · Behavioral and Leadership

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 the defense and aerospace industry?

Medium · Behavioral and Leadership

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?