Primero fue una entrevista con recursos humanos, para conocer las motivaciones y ver si encaja tu perfil. Posteriormente se encomendó una prueba técnica, y una entrevista técnica posterior para revisarla y hacer algo de peer programming. Finalmente una entrevista mas orientada a producto / negocio.

The process starts with a screening with HR and then a home assignment. It is then reviewed with a tech interview and a culture interview. I failed the review of the home assignment. This assignment took me 14 hours to do. It was extensively bigger than a ~3 hours assignment I have done. Due to its size and the time constraints you could have, I thought I could be a bit loose on some parts, but I was wrong. They want a perfectly done assignment. They wanted scalable and error handling, and here I made a mistake. I assumed I could discuss that in the code review, like I have done before. I simplified it with rake tasks instead of background jobs. They also complain about the tests, which are subjective, as they are all fine to me. Given the significant time investment required for this assignment, I would prefer not to work in an environment that demands such a high level of perfection for what was supposed to be a simple home assignment. I would appreciate a more interactive approach, such as a live coding session on a topic like Redis, with the opportunity for discussion. Alternatively, a simpler home assignment would be more manageable and less time-consuming.

The process starts with the screening interview with the Hiring Manager, and then you get a home assignment, a code challenge, related to the day-to-day work at Sequra, after that, they evaluate your results, and this is the tricky part. This is the tricky part, the feedback on the Code Challenge makes clear an assumption I had in mind, the risk I realized when I read the exam requirements. The code challenge is very extensive and open to interpretation, and this is where the evaluator can respond objectively or subjectively, without being easily noticed. In the feedback two points are emphasized, one is fair, and the other leaves doubts. The fact is that it doesn't matter how much time you invest in aspects that are also important in the architecture of a project, it only matters one simple point to the evaluator, and this exclaims that there is a person with a perfectionist profile on the other side. I understand that this Code Challenge has in mind to filter more than technical skills, but also two other dangerous aspects, aspects that I recommend future employees to be aware of: 1) Tight deadlines. 2) Perfectionism. From experience, I know that the result of this tends to be, a stressful work environment.