4 ms·
Some random advice from the Internet, for what it's worth: If you want to see how/if a candidate handles errors, logging, adding tests, etc. you should explici
by jmull 8y ago
Some random advice from the Internet, for what it's worth:
If you want to see how/if a candidate handles errors, logging, adding tests, etc. you should explicitly ask the candidate to handle errors, and add appropriate logging and tests.
Otherwise, you're mainly testing whether a candidate can read your mind.
The problem is, the appropriate level of error handling, etc. depends on context and if part of that context is in your head only, your test is sampling a lot of random noise.
- nobleach 8y agoThat's only if I would refuse to talk to someone who DIDN'T do those things. I've yet to reject talking to a candidate that achieved the goal, yet left out those "nice to haves".
- jmull 8y agoMy point is they aren't "nice to haves" if you don't ask for them. They are "purely random to haves". Ask for what you want. What's the worst that could happen? The candidate gives you want you asked for? Not a bad sign for a prospective employee.
- nobleach 8y agoSure they are. This is the OPENING to a larger conversation. This is not, "get this right, and you're hired". I've yet to see anyone attempt it and NOT get it to work... the few that have put some quick logging and error handling were nice surprises and that drove the conversation when we got them on-site.
- collyw 8y agoAgreed. We gave a test for an agency a couple of months back. Our junior forntend dev complained about a number of things that we hadn't specified (using typescript for example). I pointed out that it was a bit unfair to mark down on things that were unspecified.