The process started with an introductory video call with the head of engineering, for them to learn more about my background and experience, as well as for me to ask initial questions and learn more about the role. The second round was a strictly-timed 1-hour technical test, where I was asked to write the frontend and backend for a feature that already exists on their website in production. I was rejected at this stage of the process. Cons of the tech test: - It was explicitly stated that I must not spend longer than 1 hour total on the tech test, to be fair for all applicants. This is a ridiculously short length of time to allow for any engineer to be able to build a scaffold for their code, with automated testing, with both a frontend and backend, for 2 different challenges, and to also select which technologies and frameworks to use for their solution. - The strict limit of 1 hour meant that I spent most of the test worried about the time remaining rather than the challenge at hand. This didn't make sense for this type of role, as planning and coding under extreme pressure isn't something that this role would require (at least, it wasn't mentioned in the job description). - There was no scaffolding given for the test, or recommended tools, I was told to use whichever tools I felt were appropriate. This added a significant level of complexity to the 1 hour tech test, and again, this certainly isn't something that the role would involve under this level of pressure on a daily basis. - I was rejected based on not fully completing the challenge within the given time, as well as one specific edge-case failing in the backend logic, which hadn't been mentioned in the initial requirements. Not only would automated tests had covered this edge-case if I had been given time to write them, but I do not believe any candidate at this level would be able to complete this exercise under these conditions to the expected standards.

The process began with an introductory meeting with the head of engineering, where I had the opportunity to ask questions about the process, and they asked me questions about my knowledge and experience. The next stage was the technical test, which was to build both the frontend and backend for a feature that they currently use in production, without any bugs, within a strict 1 hour time limit. I was rejected at this stage of the process. Cons of the tech test: - It was explicitly stated that I must not spend longer than 1 hour total on the tech test, to be fair for all applicants. This is a ridiculously short length of time to allow for any engineer to be able to build a scaffold for their code, with automated testing, with both a frontend and backend, for 2 different challenges, and to also select which technologies and frameworks to use for their solution. - The strict limit of 1 hour meant that I spent most of the test worried about the time remaining rather than the challenge at hand. This didn't make sense for this type of role, as planning and coding under extreme pressure isn't something that this role would require (at least, it wasn't mentioned in the job description). - There was no scaffolding given for the test, or recommended tools, I was told to use whichever tools I felt were appropriate. This added a significant level of complexity to the 1 hour tech test, and again, this certainly isn't something that the role would involve under this level of pressure on a daily basis. - I was rejected based on not fully completing the challenge within the given time, as well as one specific edge-case failing in the backend logic, which hadn't been mentioned in the initial requirements. Not only would automated tests had covered this edge-case if I had been given time to write them, but I do not believe any candidate at this level would be able to complete this exercise under these conditions to the expected standards.