As a Software Engineer at AFRY, you are joining a leading European company in engineering, design, and advisory services. This role is pivotal to AFRY’s mission of accelerating the transition towards a sustainable society. You will contribute to complex, high-impact projects that often sit at the intersection of digital transformation and industrial engineering, working with diverse clients across sectors like energy, infrastructure, and manufacturing.
The work is intellectually demanding and highly collaborative. Whether you are developing custom software solutions, working on system integration, or providing technical consulting to external clients, you will be expected to balance technical excellence with a strong sense of ownership. AFRY values engineers who are not only technically proficient but also curious, adaptable, and capable of translating business requirements into robust, scalable technical solutions.
HR Screening
reportedHalf of this call is the part candidates treat as small talk: start date, notice period, work authorisation and its timing, location and time zone, on-call, and the number. Those are what kill offers late, after several engineers have each spent a day. Surfacing a hard constraint now costs you nothing and occasionally buys you something, since a loop compressed to fit a competing deadline can usually only be arranged if it is asked for early. The common failure is deflecting the compensation question twice, then discovering at offer stage that the band never reached your number.
What to demonstrate
- Whether your hard constraints are compatible with the role before a loop gets booked: earliest start, notice period, what authorisation you hold and when it needs action, days on site, willingness to carry a pager
- Whether you give a compensation range with something behind it, such as current total compensation or a competing timeline, rather than leaving the band untested
- Whether your stated timeline is real, since a competing deadline raised now is something scheduling can sometimes work around and the same deadline raised at offer stage usually is not
How to prepare
- Write each constraint down in one line before the call and state them as facts rather than negotiating them live under a question you were not expecting
- Set your range from two or three current data points for that level and location, and name the structure you are quoting in, so the number is comparable to the one they are holding
- If another process is running, say where it stands and by when, and ask directly whether this loop can be scheduled inside that window
Technical Assessment
reportedWhat this round decides is narrow: whether you can produce code that runs and is correct on inputs nobody showed you. An elegant solution that does not compile scores below a plain one that does, so write a correct brute force first, say out loud that you know its cost, and improve it with the working version still on screen. What separates strong answers is who finds the broken case. Trace your own code against an empty input, a single element, and duplicate keys before you say you are finished, because being told is far more expensive than noticing.
What to demonstrate
- Whether degenerate inputs get checked without being asked for: an empty collection, one element, every element equal, and the extreme value the input type allows
- Whether the complexity you state matches the code you actually wrote, including a sort or a copy sitting inside a loop
- Whether the finished answer is verified against the worked examples before you call it done, rather than assumed correct because the code reads correctly
How to prepare
- Take five problems you have already solved and, without running anything, write down what each returns for empty input, a single element, and all-duplicates. Then run them and count how many you predicted wrong.
- Drill the brute force as its own skill: on ten problems, write only the obviously-correct slow version and time how long it takes to get it passing. If that is more than a few minutes, that is what to practise, not the optimal version.
- Add a fixed last step before you submit anything, reading only the loop bounds and the initial value of each accumulator, which is where most off-by-one errors live
Practical Coding Assessment
reportedThe same problem is scored by two different mechanisms depending on the format, and preparing for one does not cover the other. With a person watching, partial progress is visible and a hint is a correction you can absorb; silence is the expensive failure, because nobody can read a half-written function. With an automated grader there is no partial credit for what you were about to do, nobody to ask, and the worked examples in the prompt are the entire specification. Read them as a contract, down to whether an empty result should be an empty list or no output at all.
What to demonstrate
- In a live session, whether your commentary tracks what your hands are doing, and whether a hint redirects you or gets defended against
- In an automated one, whether you cover the cases the examples do not show, since the hidden cases are where the score moves
- Whether you manage the clock on purpose: abandoning an approach that is not converging while there is still time to write something simpler that finishes
How to prepare
- Have someone hand you a problem and feed you one deliberately wrong hint. Practise testing it against a concrete case instead of accepting or rejecting it on authority.
- Do one timed run a week in a plain browser editor with autocomplete, linting and your own snippets switched off, which is closer to what these environments give you
- For the automated format, write the harness before the solution: a main that feeds the worked examples plus an empty and a single-element case and prints expected against actual, so a wrong submission is caught by you first
Manager Interview
reportedThe design portion here is shorter and lower-stakes than a dedicated design round, which changes what it tests. There is rarely time to reach a full component diagram, so what gets read is your first two minutes: whether you pin down constraints, meaning request rate, data size, what must not be lost and how stale a read may be, before naming any technology. Opening with a stack list invites being steered back. Once the numbers are on the table, say what breaks first if they grow tenfold, and defend the plain option where the load does not justify more.
What to demonstrate
- Whether constraints come before components: peak request rate, data volume, what must survive a process dying, and the staleness the product can tolerate
- Whether you can name what saturates first when traffic grows by an order of magnitude, and whether that matches the design you just sketched
- Whether a cache is reasoned about on both paths, since a cold or recently flushed cache sends the full request rate to the origin, so capacity has to cover the miss case and not only the steady state
- Whether you distinguish what you have operated from what you have only read about, which usually shows up in the answer to why a particular component is there
How to prepare
- Take one system you worked on and write down the numbers you would need to defend it: requests per second at peak, rows in the largest table, the latency you were actually held to. Not having them is the common stall in this part.
- Practise the tenfold question on that system out loud, naming the first bottleneck you would hit, whether that is a single writer, connection limits, disk, or a queue that grows faster than it drains, and the smallest change that buys headroom.
- Prepare one decision where the plain option was correct: the cache you did not add or the queue you did not introduce, with the load figure that made that the right call. Being able to argue for less is rarer than being able to argue for more.
Team Member Interview
reportedAn unlabelled round is first an information problem, and the cheapest information is free. Whoever schedules it can usually tell you how long it runs, who will be in the room and what they work on, whether you will be writing code and in what environment, and whether anything is being sent beforehand. Ask in writing so the answer is on record, then prepare for the two or three formats those answers still leave open instead of betting on one. What separates a strong candidate is not guessing right; it is having an opening that works whichever one it turns out to be.
What to demonstrate
- Whether you can start work from an ambiguous brief, since tolerating a vague scope without stalling is the same thing the job asks for
- Whether the questions you asked beforehand were ones that change your preparation, such as duration, medium and who is joining, rather than ones whose answers you could not have acted on
- Whether you adapt when the round turns out to be something other than what you were told, instead of spending the first ten minutes visibly recalibrating
How to prepare
- Send one short scheduling message asking four things: how long, who is joining and what they work on, whether you will be writing code and where, and whether to prepare anything in advance. Treat a vague reply as real information, since it means the round is loosely structured and you will be shaping it yourself.
- Write one opening that works in any of the formats still open: restate in your own words what you have been asked to do, then ask which of two directions is more useful to them. Say it aloud until it stops sounding recited.
- Set up for the two most likely formats before the call starts, with a blank editor in the language you would choose and a shared document you can type into, so a format surprise costs you nothing in the first minutes
Client Meeting
reportedWhen a round has no standard shape, it is often there because something is still open: an area no earlier conversation reached, a round where the signal came out mixed, or a decision someone is not ready to make alone. Work out which by going back over what each earlier round actually covered rather than how it felt, and arrive able to give evidence on that point without being asked twice. Weak answers replay the loop's earlier material at the same depth. Strong ones go a level deeper and stay consistent with what you already said.
What to demonstrate
- Whether your account of a project matches the one you gave earlier in the loop, since what you said before may be available to whoever runs this round
- Whether you can go a level deeper on something already covered, reaching the decision and its alternatives rather than repeating the summary
- Whether you state your own uncertainty accurately, including parts of a system you did not build and decisions you inherited, instead of claiming even ownership across all of it
- Whether you can answer a question you handled poorly earlier by naming what you missed, rather than delivering a polished second version as if the first had not happened
How to prepare
- Reconstruct the loop on one page: for each round, the questions you were asked and the answer you actually gave, not the better one you thought of afterwards. The gaps on that page are your best available guess at why this round exists.
- Take the two claims you made earlier that carry the most weight and assemble the backing for each: the measurement, the date, what broke, the decision you would make differently now.
- Write down the three facts about your work that must not drift between tellings, such as team size, timeline and your own role, and check your stories against that list rather than trusting recall under pressure
PracHub editorial advice for the preparation topics above.
Forking the product per client instead of building a configuration or extension point
A fork is the cheapest possible answer for one client and the most expensive possible answer for the estate. Maintenance cost grows as O(clients x changes): a single security patch now needs one port per fork, each with its own conflicts, its own test run and its own release window, and the forks drift further apart with every port. The honest rule is that a required fork is a product gap, so it should either become a supported extension point with a stable interface, or be an explicit, time-boxed and separately priced artefact that is never expected to receive upstream fixes.
Long-lived shared credentials for client systems
One static key used by the connector runtime, a debugging script and three engineers cannot be attributed to a person in an audit, cannot be expired at engagement close, and cannot be rotated without breaking an unknown number of consumers at once. The expensive part of the eventual incident is not the leak; it is that rotation requires finding every holder under time pressure, and nothing recorded who they were. Issue per-principal, per-target, short-lived grants from a broker so rotation is a no-op, attribution is automatic, and closure is a TTL rather than a search.
Starting work without saying what you are about to spend time on
State the plan before executing it: the approach, roughly how long it will take, and what you intend to leave hand-waved. That gives the interviewer a chance to redirect you in ten seconds rather than watching you spend fifteen minutes on the wrong sub-problem.
Designing for a scale nobody asked for
Ask for request rate, data size, read-to-write ratio and expected growth, then size the simplest option first; one relational instance on current hardware covers a large share of real workloads. Reaching for shards, queues and a cache tier before any number has been quoted reads as pattern-matching rather than judgement.
Choose a category, try a prompt, then open its approach, worked solution or follow-up when you need it.
Find peak window utilisation and the first rejected request
One connector binding's requests against a client endpoint arrive as timestamps t[0..n-1] in milliseconds, sorted non-decreasing, n up to 1,000,000. The endpoint's budget is R requests per rolling window of W milliseconds, and a request at time t is admitted only if strictly fewer than R already-admitted requests fall in the half-open window (t-W, t]. Return (a) the maximum number of requests falling in any W-millisecond window, counting every request regardless of admission, and (b) the index of the first request the limiter would reject. Both parts in O(n) time.
Approach
- Part (a) is a two-pointer scan: for each right index, advance left while t[right] - t[left] >= W, which leaves the window exactly (t[right]-W, t[right]], and track max(right-left+1). Left is monotone non-decreasing, so total work is O(n) amortised with O(1) extra space. The maximum over all windows of width W is attained at a window whose right edge is a request timestamp, so scanning right edges is sufficient.
- Part (b) is not the same scan. A rejected request consumes no budget, so the window must count admitted requests only. Keep a FIFO deque of admitted timestamps: pop from the front while front <= t - W, admit if the deque holds fewer than R, and return the first index where it does not. O(n) total pushes and pops, O(R) memory.
- Pin the boundary convention before writing either loop. With a half-open (t-W, t] window a request exactly W milliseconds after an earlier one does not see it; switching to a closed window changes the answer at every boundary and is where most disagreements with the client's own limiter come from.
- Note what fixed buckets of width W buy and cost: O(1) memory, but they admit up to 2R inside a span shorter than W, R at the end of one bucket and R at the start of the next. If buckets are unavoidable, halve the bucket width or use a weighted estimate across two adjacent buckets.
- If part (a) already exceeds R, the binding cannot run at this concurrency under any limiter shape. That is a scheduling problem, not a retry-policy problem, and no backoff tuning fixes it.
Worked solution 25 min
- Take W = 10,000 ms, R = 3, and timestamps in milliseconds: [0, 1000, 2000, 3000, 11000, 11500, 12000, 12500].
- Part (a): at right=3 (t=3000) the window (-7000, 3000] holds 4 requests. At right=7 (t=12500) advance left past 0, 1000 and 2000 to index 3, since 12500-3000 = 9500 < 10000; the window holds indices 3..7, which is 5 requests.
- Confirm no other right edge beats 5 by inspecting each, then record the peak.
- Part (b): admit index 0, 1 and 2 (deque grows to 3 entries, none expiring since t-W is negative). At index 3, t=3000: nothing to pop, deque size is 3, which is not strictly fewer than R=3, so reject.
- Check what happens after the rejection if rejected timestamps were wrongly enqueued: indices 4 onwards would also be refused despite the deque having expired entries by t=11000.
Follow-up
- Three bindings and four workers share this one endpoint's quota. Where does the counter live, and what is the correct behaviour when that store is unreachable?
- Add full-jitter backoff to the retry path and state precisely what it prevents that plain exponential backoff does not.
- The client documents the limit as 'about 100 per minute'. How would you measure the real one without tripping it in their production?
Assign connector bindings to rollout waves and name the cycle
Connector bindings declare ordering dependencies: an edge u -> v means v must not run in a wave earlier than one after u has succeeded. You have up to 50,000 bindings and 200,000 edges, and a misconfigured dependency may have created a cycle. Assign each binding the earliest wave number such that every predecessor sits in a strictly earlier wave, return the total wave count, and if a cycle exists return the bindings on one concrete cycle rather than a boolean. The implementation must be iterative: a dependency chain can be 50,000 deep.
Approach
- Build an adjacency list and an indegree array, then run Kahn's algorithm from every indegree-zero node. Bindings with no predecessors get wave 0. O(V+E) time, O(V+E) space.
- Relax waves as you decrement: when popping u, set wave[v] = max(wave[v], wave[u]+1) for each successor before enqueueing v at indegree zero. Because v is only enqueued after its last predecessor is popped, wave[v] is 1 + max over predecessors, which is the earliest legal wave. Total wave count is max(wave)+1, the longest path in nodes.
- If Kahn emits fewer than V nodes, the residual subgraph is exactly the nodes lying on or downstream of a cycle. Every residual node still has an in-edge inside the residual, otherwise it would have been popped, so walking backwards along in-edges cannot dead-end and must revisit a node within |residual| steps; the segment between the two visits is a concrete cycle. O(V) with a visited-position map.
- Use an explicit stack or a queue rather than recursion. Recursive DFS on a 50,000-node chain exceeds the default stack in most runtimes, and the failure looks like a crash rather than a cycle.
- At this size, recompute the whole plan whenever an edge changes. Incremental topological order maintenance costs far more code than the O(V+E) rebuild it saves.
Follow-up
- Two bindings land in the same wave but hit the same client endpoint, whose rate budget is shared. How does the wave plan have to change, and what problem class does that turn into?
- One dependency holds only for overlapping watermark ranges rather than globally. Is the dependency graph still a DAG over bindings, and what is the right vertex if not?
- Report the critical path so an operator can see which chain sets the wave count, not just that it is five.
Measure credential exposure past engagement close without double counting
For one engagement you have credential_grant rows: (grant_id, principal_id, target_system_id, issued_at, not_after, revoked_at which may be NULL). The cutoff instant T is the engagement's ends_on plus access_grace_days. A grant is live over the half-open interval [issued_at, min(not_after, revoked_at)). There are up to 200,000 grants across target systems. For each target_system_id, return the total wall-clock time after T during which at least one grant was live, plus the disjoint segments that make it up. Grants that overlap must be counted once.
Approach
- Clip each grant to [max(issued_at, T), min(not_after, coalesce(revoked_at, +inf))) and discard any interval whose start is not strictly before its end. O(n), and it removes every grant that already expired inside the engagement window.
- Bucket the survivors by target_system_id and sort each bucket by start. O(n log n) overall, and sorting dominates the whole algorithm.
- Sweep each bucket once, holding one open segment [s,e): if the next start is greater than e, emit [s,e) and open a new segment, otherwise set e = max(e, next_end). O(n) after the sort, O(1) working state, O(number of emitted segments) output.
- Total exposure is the sum of emitted segment lengths, which is the measure of the union. Summing per-grant durations instead answers a different question and is unbounded above by the elapsed wall clock.
- Produce a second, conservative figure that ignores revoked_at and uses not_after alone. revoked_at records that you asked for revocation; whether the client's identity provider honoured it is not something this table knows, and a self-contained token validated offline stays valid to its own expiry regardless.
- If a bucket does not fit in memory, sort externally and sweep the stream, or push end timestamps into a min-heap keyed by end and pop those below the current start. Same O(n log n), memory proportional to the maximum number of concurrently live grants.
Follow-up
- Three grants overlap and one of them belongs to an offboarded contractor. What must the sweep emit so exposure can be attributed per principal?
- Which of your two numbers is the real bound on access if the client system validates tokens offline, and what does that imply about issuing TTLs in the first place?
- Run this across 20,000 engagements as a nightly job with a fixed memory budget. What changes in the shape of the computation?
Return the latest attempt per connector idempotency key
connector_run stores one row per attempt: run_id, connector_id, idempotency_key, attempt_no SMALLINT, status (queued, running, succeeded, failed, ambiguous, cancelled, abandoned), failure_class, watermark_from, watermark_to, started_at, finished_at, unique on (connector_id, idempotency_key, attempt_no). For one connector_id, write the query returning the highest-numbered attempt per idempotency_key, keeping only those keys whose latest attempt is not succeeded, ordered by watermark_from. Give the index that serves it, and say what the plan does without that index.
Approach
- Use DISTINCT ON (idempotency_key) with ORDER BY idempotency_key, attempt_no DESC. PostgreSQL requires the ORDER BY to lead with exactly the DISTINCT ON expressions, and that requirement is what makes the row picked deterministic rather than whichever the scan happened to reach first.
- Apply the not-succeeded filter outside, in a wrapping SELECT. Putting it in the inner WHERE changes the question from 'keys whose latest attempt failed' to 'keys that have any non-succeeded attempt', which reports a key that failed twice and then succeeded, and is the single most common wrong answer here.
- Know the portable alternative: row_number() OVER (PARTITION BY idempotency_key ORDER BY attempt_no DESC) in a subquery, filtered = 1 outside. A window function cannot be filtered in WHERE because WHERE is evaluated before the window, and PostgreSQL has no QUALIFY clause, so the subquery is mandatory rather than stylistic.
- Index (connector_id, idempotency_key, attempt_no DESC). With connector_id fixed by equality, the index supplies the exact order DISTINCT ON needs and the Sort node disappears. It does not reduce rows read: through PostgreSQL 17 there is no loose index scan, so the executor still walks every attempt in range rather than skipping to each next distinct key.
- Give the complexity honestly: without the index the plan is a scan plus an O(n log n) sort over the connector's attempts; with it, O(n) ordered reads and constant working memory, where n is attempts in range, not distinct keys. If the distinct keys are a tiny fraction of attempts, a recursive skip-scan is the next step.
Follow-up
- attempt_no is not monotonic in time because a retry was queued out of order. Does your query still pick the right row, and which column should it actually order by?
- How would you return the latest attempt per key across all connectors in one environment without the query degrading to a full sort?
- An ambiguous latest attempt means the target may or may not have been written. What does this query feed, and should ambiguous be treated as failed here?
Soft-delete environments without breaking uniqueness or audit history
environment holds one row per provisioned deployment: environment_id, client_id, engagement_id, env_name, region, status, destroyed_at TIMESTAMPTZ NULL. Decommissioned environments stay readable for seven years, and env_name must be unique per client among live environments only, because a client may reuse a retired name. Design the constraint set and the history table, write the query that lists a client's live environments, and say what your design does about connector_run rows whose foreign key points at a destroyed environment.
Approach
- Keep the tombstone as a nullable timestamp rather than a boolean: destroyed_at carries when as well as whether, and enforce live-only uniqueness with a partial index, CREATE UNIQUE INDEX env_live_name ON environment (client_id, env_name) WHERE destroyed_at IS NULL, which indexes only the live subset and so stays small.
- Get the NULL semantics right before you pick a spelling. In a B-tree unique index two NULLs compare distinct by default, so plain UNIQUE (client_id, env_name, destroyed_at) enforces nothing at all among live rows — every live row is unique on the third column purely by virtue of being NULL. PostgreSQL 15's UNIQUE NULLS NOT DISTINCT (client_id, env_name, destroyed_at) does satisfy the requirement: the NULL live rows now compare equal and collide with each other, while retired rows carry distinct destroyed_at timestamps and stay distinct, so a name can be retired and reused any number of times.
- Prefer the partial index anyway, and be able to say why rather than asserting it. It indexes only the live subset — tens of rows per client — instead of seven years of tombstones; it needs no version floor; and it keeps destroyed_at out of the key, so it cannot be defeated by two rows retired at the same instant. That last case is reachable: now() is transaction-start time, so retiring a name, recreating it and retiring it again inside one transaction writes two identical destroyed_at values and raises a duplicate-key error under the constraint form. clock_timestamp() avoids it if you take that route.
- Put history in a separate append-only table written by an AFTER INSERT OR UPDATE OR DELETE trigger holding environment_id, changed_at, changed_by, op and the before and after row images. PostgreSQL has no system-versioned tables, so this is a trigger or a logical-decoding consumer, not a DDL flag, and the soft delete arrives at that trigger as an UPDATE rather than a DELETE.
- State the foreign-key consequence rather than leaving it implicit: a soft delete leaves every referencing connector_run row resolvable, which is exactly what the audit requirement wants, but it means no read is protected by the database. Give the predicate one home, a view or an RLS-backed view that every caller uses, instead of repeating destroyed_at IS NULL across hundreds of call sites.
- Size the retention: seven years of history plus tombstoned rows in the hot table. Partition the history table by month so expiry is a DETACH PARTITION rather than a DELETE that has to be vacuumed, and decide separately whether a residency-driven erasure request can be honoured against an append-only store at all.
Worked solution 20 min
- Write the DDL with destroyed_at TIMESTAMPTZ NULL plus the partial unique index on (client_id, env_name) WHERE destroyed_at IS NULL.
- Insert two live rows sharing (client_id, env_name) and confirm the second is rejected; set destroyed_at on the first and confirm the insert now succeeds.
- Build the same table a second time under UNIQUE NULLS NOT DISTINCT (client_id, env_name, destroyed_at) and confirm it passes the same two tests, so you are choosing between two working designs rather than rejecting a broken one.
- Add environment_history (history_id, environment_id, changed_at, changed_by, op, row_before JSONB, row_after JSONB) and the AFTER trigger that populates it.
- Write the live-listing query: SELECT environment_id, env_name, region, status FROM environment WHERE client_id = $1 AND destroyed_at IS NULL ORDER BY env_name.
Follow-up
- What stops the next endpoint from forgetting the destroyed_at IS NULL predicate, and does that mechanism survive a developer writing raw SQL?
- The history table stores row images as JSONB and the base table gains a column. What do old rows now mean, and how do you read them six years later?
- A residency erasure request requires a genuine hard delete for one client. What breaks, and what do you keep?
How do you ensure your code is production-ready?
How do you ensure your code is production-ready?
Approach
- Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.
- Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer contains.
- State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
Follow-up
- What assumption would you test first?
- How would you know your answer was wrong?
Describe the nature of your involvement in past projects.
Describe the nature of your involvement in past projects.
Approach
- Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer contains.
- Work from the requirement backwards to the design.
- Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.
Follow-up
- How would you know your answer was wrong?
- What assumption would you test first?
Split a field in an API twelve live versions cannot upgrade
Your public API returns a work-record representation carrying a single decimal hours field. You need to move to integer minutes, add an activity field older responses do not carry, and add two values to the status enum. A dozen release versions are live at once: shared-pool tenants upgrade weekly, dedicated deployments quarterly, and client-managed installs on their own schedule, currently two quarters behind. The callers are client-written integrations you cannot see or compel. Design the evolution: what you version, the sequence, the signal that removal is safe, and what breaks a client that does nothing.
Approach
- Separate the three changes, because their compatibility properties are different. Adding
minutesbesidehoursis additive and safe for any reader that ignores unknown fields. Addingactivityis additive. Adding enum values is not: a client that switches exhaustively onstatusand throws on the default branch breaks, so whether this is safe depends entirely on whether 'unknown values map to a documented fallback' was published before those clients were written. If it was not, the addition belongs behind a new major version, not in this one. - Choose the versioning unit deliberately. A major version in the path is coarse and drags every endpoint along at once; a version header or per-representation media types are finer but multiply the test matrix by the number of live combinations. With a two-quarter tail, the cheapest correct answer is additive-only evolution inside the current major, with a new major held in reserve for changes that cannot be expressed additively — and removing
hoursis exactly one of those. - Sequence it expand, dual-write, backfill, move reads, contract. Emit both fields for the whole window with
hoursderived fromminutes, so there is one source of truth and the two cannot disagree. The mistake is storing both: some path then writes one and not the other, and a client reading the stale one produces a billing discrepancy nobody can attribute. On the write path accept either field, and reject a request carrying both with inconsistent values rather than quietly preferring one. - Respect the precision problem that motivates the change, because it also constrains the transition. A value like 7.4 hours is not exactly representable in binary floating point, so
hoursround-trips inexactly and rounding to minute granularity can differ between your renderer and a client's parser. Keep integerminutesas the value of record, derivehoursfor display, and document the rounding rule so a client reconciling the two fields arrives at your number rather than its own. - Gate removal on observed convergence rather than on a date. Record the release version and environment_id against every request and expose per-field usage counts, so you can name the environments still reading
hours. Publish a Sunset header (RFC 8594) with its Deprecation companion and an end-of-life date, then be prepared to move that date: a client-managed install two quarters behind is a fact about the estate, not a communications failure. - Write down what a client that does nothing experiences at each step, because that is the contract's real specification. Additive steps: nothing. The enum addition: a failure if it switches exhaustively, which is why the fallback rule must pre-date it. Removal: a hard break, which is why it happens only behind a major version or after the usage count for that field has been zero across every environment you can see.
Worked solution 40 min
- Write the current and target representations side by side, labelling each delta additive, behavioural or breaking with one line of reasoning.
- Write the transitional representation showing
hoursderived fromminutes, with the rounding rule stated explicitly. - Write the write path's rule for a request carrying both fields, including the inconsistent case and which field wins if you accept both.
- Design the usage telemetry: what you record per request to attribute a field read to an environment_id and release, and what you will still not be able to see.
- Draft the deprecation dates and headers, then write the single observation that authorises removing
hours. - For each step, write one sentence describing what a client that does nothing experiences.
Follow-up
- Telemetry says one client-managed environment still reads
hoursand its contact has not replied in eight weeks. What do you do, and what do you refuse to do? - A client insists on pinning to a version for three years. What do you actually commit to supporting, and how does that appear in the contract?
One connector burns a client's entire rate budget
A client reports that your integration is exhausting their API quota, and every connector binding for that client now fails with client_429. For one binding, connector_run holds 300 rows sharing one idempotency_key with attempt_no incrementing, all with status 'running', finished_at NULL and failure_class NULL, created exactly 120 seconds apart over the last ten hours. The run lease is 120 seconds. Workers in that pool show restart counts in the hundreds. Other clients are unaffected. Diagnose in order, say who is at fault, and state what stops one range doing this again.
Approach
- Split client fault from your fault before anyone contacts the client. Group the last hour's failures by client and by binding: every binding for one client failing while other clients are clean means a resource shared with that client is exhausted, and the only thing you share with them is their quota.
- Read the ledger's shape, which is the entire diagnosis. Three hundred attempts under one idempotency_key, none with a terminal status and none with a failure_class, spaced at exactly the lease interval. A handled failure writes failure_class and finished_at; writing nothing at all means the worker was killed before it could classify. The exact spacing names the killer as lease expiry, not the client endpoint.
- Quantify the damage from the same rows: records_applied is zero across all 300, while each attempt got far enough to pull pages. The binding consumes quota continuously and applies nothing, which is why the other bindings for that client see 429 and the faulty one does not.
- Reproduce offline. watermark_from and watermark_to are recorded, so replay that exact range against a captured payload with the lease disabled and find what exceeds 120 seconds: a page far larger than the others, a validator input that degrades badly, or an unbounded in-memory accumulation over the range.
- Fix the loop before the payload. Cap attempt_no, move the range to status 'abandoned' with an alert, and hold the watermark rather than advancing past it, because a silent gap is data loss and skipping must require a human decision. Then make the work fit the lease: stream and chunk the page, renew the lease only while progress is provable, and bound the page size at the boundary.
- Add the detector this evaded. Alert on attempts that never reach a terminal state, not only on failure counts, because a run that never finishes never increments any failure metric.
Follow-up
- The client asks how much of their quota you consumed. Which rows answer that, and what would you have to add to answer it exactly?
- The abandoned range contains records you still need. What is the safe way to get past it without breaking the at-most-once guarantee?
- Lease renewal introduces a new failure: a worker that renews steadily but makes no progress. How do you catch that one?
Roughly ninety minutes on weeknights with one longer weekend block. The plan cuts scope rather than compressing everything, on the assumption that one thing finished per night beats four half-started.
Prepare, practise & reflect
One practical outcome each day. Spend longer where you need it.
0 / 7 done01Fix the scope and take a cold baseline
- Read the role description and write the three things the loop will almost certainly test, then write an explicit not-doing list and keep it visible all week.
- Take one twenty-five-minute coding problem and one fifteen-minute design prompt cold, and write the single sentence naming what blocked each, because those two sentences decide where the remaining evenings go.
- Set the week's rule: one thing finished every night, including the night you only have forty minutes.
Deliverable: A one-page scope with a not-doing list and two cold attempts, each carrying one sentence on what blocked it.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗02One pattern, written three times from blank
- Choose the single pattern most likely to appear in your loop and write it three times from an empty file rather than editing the previous attempt.
- On the third pass, write the invariant as a comment before the loop body and the complexity before the first line of code.
- Stop at ninety minutes even if the third version is imperfect, and write the one thing you would fix given another hour.
Deliverable: Three independent implementations of the same pattern plus a note on what changed between them.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗03One design, only to the depth you can defend
- Take one system shape and go only as far as requirements, interface and data model, refusing to draw a box you could not survive a follow-up about.
- Attach one number to each non-functional requirement, deriving it rather than asserting it, and write the assumption the number rests on.
- Write the one tradeoff you are choosing against and the observation that would make you reverse it.
Deliverable: One design at interface-and-schema depth with derived numbers and one written reversible tradeoff.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗04Only the fundamentals you will have to defend
- Write, in under two hundred words each, the answers to the two questions that follow almost any implementation: why this structure and not the obvious alternative, and what happens to this code at a hundred times the input.
- Write what an index actually costs: faster lookups on the indexed columns against a write that now maintains a second structure, plus the cases where the planner declines to use it anyway, low selectivity, or a predicate wrapping the column in a function.
- Delete any answer you cannot deliver aloud in under a minute, since an answer that needs reading is not an answer you have.
Deliverable: Three written answers, each under two hundred words and each timed aloud.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗05Your own work, timed
- Write a ninety-second and a four-minute version of your main project and time both aloud rather than reading them.
- Prepare the two follow-ups that always come: what you would do differently, and how you knew it worked.
- Put one number in the first sentence and be ready to say exactly where it came from and what it excludes.
Deliverable: Two timed narratives with one defensible number in the opening line.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗06The one full rehearsal, in the weekend block
- Run a sixty-minute mock covering a coding round and a design round in one sitting with no break, because sustained attention is the thing evenings have not trained.
- Immediately afterwards, and before hearing any feedback, write the three moments you lost the thread.
- Spend the rest of the block only on those three moments, and on nothing you merely feel shaky about.
Deliverable: Mock notes naming three failure moments with a specific fix written under each.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗07Taper
- Write the twenty-minute warm-up you will actually do on the morning: one problem you can already solve from a blank file, one design you can narrate, and nothing you have never seen.
- Re-read only your own notes from this week and open no new material.
- Write the logistics down: the editor or shared document you will be working in, whether execution and lookups are permitted, and the sentence you will use when you do not know something.
Deliverable: A one-page card holding the design structure, the project numbers, and the logistics.
Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗Expand any day for tasks and deliverables. Your progress is saved on this device.
When the requirements were thin, the interesting part is how you fenced the problem off: the assumption you wrote down, who you got to confirm it, the narrow version you shipped first so the rest stayed cheap to change. Guessing and being right is luck. Guessing in writing, where someone could correct you, is method.
Describe your experience with [Specific Technology, e.g., Java].
Describe your experience with [Specific Technology, e.g., Java].
Approach
- Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.
- Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
- Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
Follow-up
- What did you decide not to do, and why?
- What would you do differently if you ran that again?
What is your experience with [Industry-Specific Domain, e.g., Optics/E…
What is your experience with [Industry-Specific Domain, e.g., Optics/Embedded Systems]?
Approach
- Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.
- Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
- Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
Follow-up
- What would you do differently if you ran that again?
- How did you know your change caused the improvement?
What are your biggest strengths and weaknesses?
What are your biggest strengths and weaknesses?
Approach
- State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
- Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
- Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
Follow-up
- What did you decide not to do, and why?
- What would you do differently if you ran that again?
What does sustainability mean to you?
What does sustainability mean to you?
Approach
- Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
- Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
- State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
Follow-up
- How did you know your change caused the improvement?
- What did you decide not to do, and why?
- 01
Describe your experience with [Specific Technology, e.g., Java].
- 02
What is your experience with [Industry-Specific Domain, e.g., Optics/Embedded Systems]?
- 03
What are your biggest strengths and weaknesses?
- 04
What does sustainability mean to you?
Is this an official AFRY interview guide?
No. It is PracHub's own research and practice material for the Software Engineer role at AFRY. Rounds and questions reflect what candidates have reported, not a process AFRY has published, and they change over time. Confirm the current format and scope with your recruiter.
PracHub interview research ↗How long should I prepare for the interview?
Given the mix of behavioral and technical rounds, most candidates benefit from at least 1–2 weeks of preparation. Focus on reviewing your past projects and practicing common coding challenges.
PracHub interview research ↗What differentiates successful candidates?
Beyond technical skills, successful candidates demonstrate a genuine interest in AFRY’s projects and a strong ability to communicate their problem-solving process. Showing a "consultant mindset"—being proactive, professional, and client-focused—is a significant advantage.
PracHub interview research ↗Is the technical test difficult?
The technical tests are generally designed to be fair and representative of the work you would actually do. They are not intended to "catch you out," but rather to assess your practical engineering skills.
PracHub interview research ↗What is the typical timeline from the first interview to an offer?
The process can move relatively quickly, typically spanning a few weeks. However, timelines can vary based on team availability and project requirements.
PracHub interview research ↗Sources & methodology 3 sources ↗
No official company page is cited. Rounds and questions come from candidate reports and PracHub editorial material; each source shows the date it was read.
- 01PracHub interview research ↗
PracHub editorial research into this company and role, maintained with this guide. Candidate-reported, not an employer publication.
PracHub page · Accessed 2026-09-22 - 02PracHub Software Engineer practice ↗
Cross-company practice questions for this role.
PracHub page · Accessed 2026-09-22 - 03PracHub interview preparation framework ↗
The framework the preparation plan follows.
PracHub page · Accessed 2026-09-22
Explore related engineering environments and compare the preparation focus.
Accenture Software Engineer Interview Guide
Operational practice for Accenture software engineer candidates: picking the signal that catches a bad release early, and telling a latency regression apart from a shift in traffic mix.
MetaDesign Solutions Software Engineer Interview Questions & Guide 2026
Code-reading and review practice for MetaDesign Solutions candidates: tracing unfamiliar control flow, finding the invariant a function quietly depends on, and separating a correctness defect from a matter of taste.
Knack Consulting Services Software Engineer Interview Questions & Guide 2026
Concurrency exercises for Knack Consulting Services candidates: check-then-act races, deadlock from inconsistent lock ordering, and why two individually atomic operations do not compose into an atomic update.
Globenet Consulting Software Engineer Interview Questions & Guide 2026
A study plan for Globenet Consulting software engineer prep built on spaced review: commit to a full answer before opening any solution, and repeat every missed exercise three days later.