Behavioral Flashcards
How do you handle differences in opinion when working with a team, especially if you disagree with a technical approach being suggested?
Typically, I’ll speak up and let my teammates know why I think something is not the best idea and then present what my suggestion is. From there we, as a group, can debate the pros and cons of each approach and work together to find a common agreement to move forward.
Imagine a scenario where a client or product manager requests a feature that could be quickly implemented with a workaround, but the solution would not be scalable. How would you approach this situation?
In such situations, I prioritize long-term sustainability and quality of the codebase, but I also understand the business needs for timely delivery. Here’s how I’d approach this scenario:
Evaluate the Urgency: If it’s genuinely urgent, a temporary workaround might be warranted.
Transparent Communication: I’d communicate the trade-offs involved with the quick workaround & explain the potential technical debt.
Propose a Two-Phase Implementation: In the first phase, roll out the quick workaround to address the immediate need. In the second phase, allocate time to revisit and refactor the feature, implementing a more scalable and robust solution.
Document the Workaround: it’s essential to document the reasons behind the decision, the details of the workaround, and the future steps needed for a more scalable solution. This way, any developer who encounters this part of the codebase in the future will understand the context.
Allocate Time for Refactoring: It’s crucial to plan for this; otherwise, temporary fixes can easily become permanent, leading to a more fragile system over time.
Educate and Collaborate: Often, non-technical stakeholders might not fully grasp the implications of technical debt. It’s essential to build a collaborative relationship with them, educating them on the importance of scalability and the long-term benefits of a robust solution.
Imagine you’ve been tasked to refactor an older section of a Rails application that’s crucial to the business. How would you approach this refactoring, ensuring minimal disruptions and maintaining system integrity?
Understand the Context: Before diving in, I’d spend time understanding the original intent of the code, the business logic, and the stakeholders involved.
Backup and Version Control: Ensure that the current version of the application is safely stored in version control. T
Testing: This is paramount. If there aren’t adequate tests for that section of the application, I’d start by writing them. These tests will act as a safety net, ensuring that the refactoring doesn’t unintentionally alter the functionality.
Incremental Changes: Instead of doing a massive overhaul, I would break the refactoring task into smaller, manageable chunks. This allows for more precise testing and easier code reviews.
Performance Monitoring: Before and after the refactor, I’d monitor the performance of the section in question, using tools like New Relic or Skylight. This ensures that the refactor doesn’t unintentionally degrade performance.
Peer Review: Once I’ve made changes, I’d have them reviewed by peers. A fresh set of eyes can catch issues that I might have missed.
Staging Environment: Deploy the refactored code to a staging environment first. This environment should mirror production as closely as possible. It’s crucial to test the changes in a realistic environment before deploying them to production.
Communication: Inform relevant stakeholders about the changes, especially if there might be any visible impact or short periods of downtime.
Deployment and Monitoring: After deploying the refactored code to production, I’d closely monitor for any issues. T
Documentation: Finally, I’d ensure that the changes and the reasons behind them are well-documented for the benefit of current and future developers.
Give me a specific example of a time when a co-worker criticized your work in front of others. How did you respond? How has that event shaped the way you communicate with others?
There was a time in a project meeting that a co-worker didn’t understand why I had implemented a feature the way that I had. I took a moment to understand their perspective and then responded calmly by acknowledging their concern. I then clarified the reasons behind my approach and provided the data that supported my decisions. It turned out that there was a miscommunication between us, and my approach was indeed aligned with the project’s objectives.
This experience taught me to always be prepared with facts and data to support my work. It’s essential to handle criticism professionally and without getting defensive. This shows maturity and a willingness to collaborate. Since then, I have made it a point to frequently communicate and check in with team members on collaborative projects. This proactive communication helps clear any ambiguities and ensures everyone is on the same page, reducing the likelihood of public criticisms.
