Not the worst interview process I was involved in, but definitely with some weird aspects. The process consisted of several parts: - 30 min recruiter call - 45 min high-level discussion of my experience with 2 engineers, nothing too deep - 1.5 h live-coding, new feature implementation in an Android app with small architectural discussions. They messed up with giving me access to the code project template in advance, so instead of 1 hour I had at most 20 minutes to prepare everything for the inteview - 45 min discussion about my experience and work approaches with two EMs and a team lead (?) I passed all the stages before the last one spectacularly (or so I was told :D), but the last one was weird. I was a bit uncomfortable—I believe 3 interviewers is a bit too much. Besides the hiring manager (who might become my EM), there was another manager, plus some kind of tech/team lead. It was unclear who was leading the interview; it felt more like a cross-examination by two managers, and I had trouble communicating with the manager from another team. It seemed like they did not listen to me. Just one example of communication: "Do you have experience mentoring less experienced engineers?" "Well, in my current company, we don't hire junior devs, but in my previous role I mentored a couple of junior developers." "So, are you saying you don't really have experience in mentoring others?" I don't know if that's a language barrier (most of the interviewers throughout the process had quite heavy accents), prejudice, or something else—but I was rejected after this last stage. The rejection itself is some kind of a joke. The recruiter scheduled a call with me a couple of days after the last interview just to say that the feedback was negative, but they were going to discuss my candidacy once again. And then, after a couple more days, they scheduled another call just to say that, unfortunately, it's still a "no." I am quite sure at least one of the calls could've just been an email. And I don't understand the need to give hope that their decision may change. Just don't say anything—say you need two more days to evaluate me and give the final feedback. But maybe it's just me.

Initial call with the recruiter about my previous and current experience. Take home android app task was given with 3 days deadline, small app scope. Requirements were outline clearly. I was rejected for: - Unused dependencies - Unused imports - A crash - Usage of separate live datas for error, loading and result - "Unused object" that was used to use @BindingMethod - Single module (yet multi module was considered as extra or good to have) I concurred on the crash. - Unused dependencies and import, it is absolutely ridiculous to raise the bar on it. Regarding "unused object" with @BindingMethod, I wish the developer reviewing the code brush up his/her skills on Databinding. - I used vanilla Dagger 2 for DI, multibinding with custom key for mapping (not just for ViewModels mapping, but for the use cases), @Qualifiers, @Scopes, @Component with Subcomponents, I also demonstrated interface dependencies binding using @Binds, also made up case where I can use @BindsInstance, worth mentioning is injecting parameterized interfaces, yet it was evaluated as BASIC. Basically, I used dagger thoroughly. - Demonstrated usage of SOLID principles with emphasis of interface segregation and single responsibility, usage of factories, composition and polymorphism. - Usage of separate live data for result (success), loading and error state, how is this bad thing? I suggest they low the bar on stupid things like "unused imports" or "unused dependencies", also ask the developer to study the android documentation on Databinding. Especially, the retention policy and target of the annotations, he/she apparently skipped that lesson and has no idea what he/she is talking about whatsoever.