Skip to content

EVALUATION_GUIDE.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
138 lines (105 loc) · 5.74 KB

EVALUATION_GUIDE.md

File metadata and controls

138 lines (105 loc) · 5.74 KB

Candidate Evaluation Guide

This document provides structured guidelines for evaluating candidate submissions to the TaskFlow API coding exercise.

Evaluation Process

  1. Initial Code Review: Review the code for overall structure, organization, and completeness.
  2. Functionality Testing: Test the implemented features for correctness.
  3. Code Quality Assessment: Evaluate code against quality metrics.
  4. Documentation Review: Assess API and code documentation.
  5. Interview Discussion: Use the submission as a basis for technical discussion during interviews.

Evaluation Criteria

1. Task Module Implementation (25 points)

Criteria Points Description
CRUD Operations 10 All CRUD operations are correctly implemented
Input Validation 5 Proper validation using class-validator and pipes
Filtering & Pagination 5 Effective implementation of filtering and pagination
Error Handling 5 Robust error handling in controller and service

Notes for Reviewers:

  • Check if all endpoints return proper status codes
  • Verify that validation is working correctly
  • Test pagination and filtering with different parameters
  • Check how edge cases are handled

2. Background Processing (20 points)

Criteria Points Description
Task Processor Implementation 10 Correct implementation of the BullMQ processor
Scheduled Tasks 5 Implementation of the overdue tasks notifier
Error Handling in Queues 5 Proper handling of errors in queue processing

Notes for Reviewers:

  • Check if the processor correctly updates task statuses
  • Verify that the scheduled task works as expected
  • Test error scenarios in queue processing
  • Check for race conditions and concurrency issues

3. API Security (15 points)

Criteria Points Description
Rate Limiting 5 Effective implementation of rate limiting
Authentication 5 Proper use of JWT authentication
Authorization 5 Correct implementation of role-based access control

Notes for Reviewers:

  • Test rate limiting by making multiple requests
  • Verify that authenticated endpoints reject unauthenticated requests
  • Check if role-based access control works correctly

4. Testing (15 points)

Criteria Points Description
Test Coverage 5 Comprehensive test coverage of key functionality
Test Quality 5 Effective use of mocks, stubs, and test setup
Edge Case Testing 5 Tests include edge cases and error scenarios

Notes for Reviewers:

  • Run the test suite with bun test and check for passing tests
  • Evaluate the quality and structure of the tests
  • Check if edge cases and error scenarios are tested

5. Documentation (10 points)

Criteria Points Description
API Documentation 5 Comprehensive Swagger documentation
Code Documentation 5 Clear comments and documentation in the code

Notes for Reviewers:

  • Check if all endpoints are documented in Swagger
  • Verify that complex code has appropriate comments
  • Assess the overall clarity of the documentation

6. Code Quality (15 points)

Criteria Points Description
TypeScript Usage 5 Proper use of TypeScript features and type safety
Code Organization 5 Clean, readable, and maintainable code
Performance Considerations 5 Attention to performance and scalability

Notes for Reviewers:

  • Check for proper typing and avoidance of any
  • Evaluate code organization and adherence to best practices
  • Look for performance optimizations and scalability considerations

Bonus Points (10 points)

Criteria Points Description
Additional Features 5 Implementation of useful features beyond requirements
Improvements to Base Code 5 Thoughtful improvements to the provided code

Notes for Reviewers:

  • Evaluate any additional features for their usefulness and implementation quality
  • Consider thoughtful improvements to the base code that weren't explicitly required

Total Score

The maximum possible score is 110 points (100 base + 10 bonus).

Score Range Evaluation
90-110 Excellent candidate, highly recommended
80-89 Strong candidate, recommended
70-79 Good candidate, consider for further rounds
60-69 Average candidate, may need additional evaluation
Below 60 Not recommended

Interview Follow-up Questions

Use these questions during the interview to discuss the candidate's submission:

  1. Architecture Decisions: "Can you explain your approach to implementing the task processor?"
  2. Technical Challenges: "What was the most challenging part of the exercise and how did you overcome it?"
  3. Alternative Approaches: "What alternative approaches did you consider for implementing filtering and pagination?"
  4. Performance: "How would you optimize the application for a large number of tasks and users?"
  5. Scaling: "How would you modify the application to handle high load?"
  6. Security: "What additional security measures would you implement in a production environment?"
  7. Error Handling: "Can you explain your approach to error handling in the application?"
  8. Testing: "How would you improve the test coverage of the application?"

Final Recommendation

The final recommendation should consider the numerical score as well as a holistic assessment of the candidate's:

  • Problem-solving approach
  • Code structure and organization
  • Attention to detail
  • Communication in code and documentation
  • Technical depth demonstrated in the implementation