As a Software Engineer at Aircall, you play a foundational role in powering an industry-leading, AI-driven customer communications platform used by tens of thousands of companies worldwide. Your day-to-day work directly contributes to scaling unified communication systems that combine voice, SMS, WhatsApp, and advanced AI capabilities into seamless workspaces. This position sits at the intersection of high-throughput distributed systems and rapid, practical AI innovation, driving solutions that help global business teams work smarter and faster.
You will contribute to critical product lines, ranging from real-time communication routing and core backend infrastructure to cutting-edge applied AI workflows, agentic systems, and internal GTM automations. The scale is substantial, requiring you to balance low-latency performance with uncompromising security and reliability. Whether you are optimizing voice data pipelines, integrating large language models, or designing robust microservices, your code directly influences user engagement, revenue generation, and customer satisfaction across global markets.
Success in this role demands a unique blend of technical excellence, architectural vision, and a strong product-oriented mindset. You will navigate ambiguous problem spaces, collaborate closely with cross-functional product and data teams, and take complete ownership of your solutions from prototype to production. Expect a fast-moving, entrepreneurial environment where your technical contributions have immediate, visible impact on the business and its rapid global expansion.
Recruiter Conversation
reportedThe title covers product work, platform work, infrastructure, mobile and frontend, and those are different jobs with different loops behind them. A screening call is the cheapest place to find out which one the seat is, and asking reads as experienced rather than fussy. The questions that separate them: what the team is on call for, what the last three projects were, and whether any round happens inside an existing repository instead of a blank file. Then say which of that you have done and which you have not. Claiming the whole posting is the fastest way to be found out one round later.
What to demonstrate
- Whether you can locate your experience inside one flavour of the role honestly instead of claiming the entire requirements list
- Whether you name what you have not done, which an experienced screener reads as a level signal and can plan the loop around
- Whether what you want next matches what the seat is: someone who wants greenfield work landing on a team that mostly operates an existing system is a hire that leaves within the year
How to prepare
- Mark every line of the posting as done, adjacent or new, and write one sentence for each adjacent line naming the closest thing you actually built
- Split your last two years into rough percentages across feature work, operating and debugging live systems, and design or review, so a question about scope gets numbers rather than adjectives
- Bring three questions that discriminate between seats: what the team is paged for, how much of the work is changing existing code versus standing up something new, and what shipped in the last quarter
Technical Screening
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 Evaluation
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
Architectural Discussions
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
Final Stages
reportedWhere the day includes a partner from product, design or data, that conversation is weighted like the technical ones and prepared for least. They are deciding one thing: whether having you in the room makes their decisions cheaper. That means options with costs attached, not implementation detail and not "it depends". An estimate someone can plan against — a range, the assumption that would push it to the high end, and what you would drop to hit the low one — is worth more than a confident single number, which everyone present already knows is wrong.
What to demonstrate
- Whether an estimate comes as a range with the assumption most likely to break it, and states what a specific scope cut would actually buy
- Whether a technical constraint is handed over as a choice with consequences on their side, rather than as a verdict they have no standing to argue with
- Whether you establish what decision is on the table before proposing anything
- Whether risk is raised while it can still change the plan, with the trigger that would confirm it, instead of reported afterwards as a slip
How to prepare
- Take a project that shipped late and write the two-sentence warning you could have given three weeks earlier, naming what you would have needed decided at that point
- Rehearse one estimate out loud until it arrives in three parts: the range, the single assumption that would blow it, and the smallest thing you would cut to protect the date
- Rewrite an objection you have actually made — the "we can't do that" version — as two options with their costs, so the choice ends up with the person who owns it
PracHub editorial advice for the preparation topics above.
Checking a quota with a select and then writing
Under read-committed isolation, two concurrent transactions both observe a count below the limit and both insert, so the limit is exceeded by exactly the concurrency. Repeatable read does not rescue it either: it provides a stable snapshot, and this is write skew, which snapshot isolation permits by design. The options are serialisable isolation, which detects the conflict and aborts one transaction with a serialisation failure and therefore obliges the caller to retry; a single statement with the predicate inside the write; or a constraint that makes the surplus insert fail outright. The reason this pattern survives review is that it is correct in every test that runs one request at a time.
Paginating a growing table with limit and offset
Two unrelated defects share the idiom. Correctness: rows inserted or deleted between page requests shift the window, so a consumer walking an export skips rows and sees others twice, which for a customer-facing sync is silent data loss rather than an error anyone notices. Cost: the database still produces and discards the skipped rows, so page N costs time proportional to N times the page size and a deep page on a large table degrades from milliseconds to seconds. Keyset pagination over a stable, unique, indexed ordering -- where (created_at, id) < ($1, $2) order by created_at desc, id desc limit $3 -- is constant-cost per page and immune to shifting, on the precondition that the cursor columns never change value for a row, which disqualifies updated_at as a cursor.
A queue or buffer with no bound
Every producer-consumer boundary needs a capacity and a policy for reaching it: block the producer, shed load, or drop the oldest entry. Unbounded buffering converts a temporary slowdown into memory exhaustion and hides the backpressure signal that would have revealed the consumer was falling behind.
Not asking what the system looks like if it dies halfway through
For any multi-step write, say what state remains if the process stops between step two and step three, and what brings it back: a single transaction, a saga with compensating actions, an outbox, or a reconciliation job. Partial failure is routine at any real call volume, so 'that shouldn't happen' is an answer with nothing behind it.
Choose a category, try a prompt, then open its approach, worked solution or follow-up when you need it.
1–2 sentences introducing the category and what it tests.
1–2 sentences introducing the category and what it tests.
Approach
- State the target complexity and say which constraint rules the naive version out.
- Choose the data structure from the access pattern, not from familiarity.
- Walk one small example through your approach before writing the whole thing.
Follow-up
- How does this change if the input no longer fits in memory?
- Which test case would catch an off-by-one here?
Schedule ordered webhook retries with a heap of subscription queues
Design the in-memory scheduler for webhook delivery. Up to 20 million rows sit in status pending or failed_retryable across 200,000 subscriptions, each row carrying next_attempt_at and attempt_count, and each endpoint having a circuit breaker. Deliveries for one subscription must be attempted in order, so at most one attempt per subscription may be in flight. Support due(now), complete(delivery, outcome) and insert(delivery) in O(log S), where S is the subscription count rather than the delivery count. Give the backoff formula you schedule retries with.
Approach
- Key the global heap by subscription, not by delivery. Each subscription owns a FIFO of its due deliveries in event order; the heap holds one entry per eligible subscription, keyed by its head's
next_attempt_at. That is 200,000 heap entries instead of 20 million, and it makes the one-in-flight rule structural rather than a check somebody can forget. due(now): peek the minimum. If its key is in the future, sleep until then instead of spinning. Otherwise pop it, move the subscription into an in-flight set, and do not re-push it. A subscription absent from the heap cannot be dispatched twice, which is precisely how ordering is preserved.complete: on success, drop the head and re-push the subscription keyed by its new head, or leave it out when the queue empties. On a retryable failure, incrementattempt_countand setnext_attempt_at = now + uniform(0, min(cap, base * 2^attempt)), sampled uniformly across the whole interval. That is full jitter; deterministic backoff re-synchronises the herd you just created.- Circuit breaker: park the subscription in a second heap keyed by its half-open time, so an endpoint dead for six hours costs one heap entry and zero attempts rather than consuming worker slots. Admit exactly one probe at half-open and close the breaker only on its success.
- Say the price of the ordering guarantee out loud. One in-flight attempt per subscription means an endpoint answering in 10 seconds drains at 0.1 deliveries/second however many workers you run, and its backlog grows until it recovers. If the customer does not need order, allow k in flight and document delivery as unordered; that is the trade, and it is a product decision.
- All three operations are O(log S) with O(S) resident heap memory and the queues themselves backed by the store. The database-backed equivalent is a partial index on
(subscription_id, next_attempt_at) where status in ('pending','failed_retryable')claimed withFOR UPDATE SKIP LOCKED, and the write-back must be fenced onlease_tokenso a worker that stalled and resumed cannot overwrite a newer attempt.
Follow-up
- One subscription has 4 million queued deliveries. What stops it from starving the other 199,999, and what does your heap look like under that load?
- A customer requests redelivery of last Tuesday's events. Where do those rows enter your structure, and what keeps them from reordering live traffic?
- The process restarts. How much state do you rebuild, and what stops every subscription from being attempted in the same second?
Seal an hour under late data with bounded memory
Metering ingest reads 256 partitions at 10,000 to 40,000 events/second. Events carry occurred_at and ingested_at, and during a producer replay the gap between them is hours. Seal each UTC hour once no more than 50 parts per million of that hour's eventual quantity can still arrive, using memory that does not grow with the size of the replay. Define the watermark, the lateness parameter and how you measure it, the structure holding open hours, and the write that performs the seal. State what an idle partition does to your watermark.
Approach
- Two clocks, two jobs. Bucket by
occurred_at, because that is the hour the customer is billed for, and advance the watermark oningested_at, because that is what the fold has consumed and whatsource_max_ingested_atrecords. Conflating them is what makes late data invisible. - The global watermark is the min over partitions of each partition's committed
ingested_at, not the max: the fold is trustworthy only as far as the slowest partition. The consequence is that one idle partition pins the watermark forever and nothing seals, so an idle partition must promote its watermark to wall clock after a stated idle timeout, and that timeout becomes a correctness parameter, because a partition that is slow rather than idle gets sealed past. - Choose the lateness L from the measured distribution of
ingested_at - occurred_at, weighted by quantity rather than by event count. The target is 50 ppm of the hour's quantity, and a replay is rare in events while carrying disproportionate mass, so an event-weighted quantile picks an L that is comfortably wrong at exactly the moment it matters. - Measure that quantile in bounded memory. A Greenwald-Khanna summary gives epsilon-approximate quantiles in O((1/epsilon) log(epsilon n)) space; a t-digest costs more per merge but has relative error that tightens at the tails, which is the half of the distribution you are reading at p99.99. Keep a separate summary per tenant class, because one tenant's batch importer is not the population.
- Hold open hours in a min-heap keyed by
hour_start. When the watermark advances, pop every hour withhour_end + L < Wand seal it: O(log H_open) per advance and O(1) amortised per event to touch its bucket. Memory is open hours multiplied by distinct(tenant, workspace, sku)keys, so cap the number of simultaneously open hours and spill the oldest intousage_rollup_hourlyasstatus='open'with arevisionbump. While an hour is open the row is upsertable, so the store is your overflow. - The seal itself is a conditional write:
update ... set status='sealed', sealed_at=now() where status='open' returning .... Two sealers race on every restart, and the loser must see zero rows and stop rather than write a second value. After the seal, an event for that hour is not an upsert but an adjustment, andsource_max_ingested_atis what proves it arrived afterwards.
Worked solution 40 min
- Replay a day of events with a synthetic lateness distribution: 99.9% under two minutes, plus a 0.05% tail at four to six hours that carries 3% of total quantity.
- Compute the p99.99 lateness two ways, event-weighted and quantity-weighted, and put the two numbers side by side.
- Implement the min-heap of open hours with the watermark as the min over 256 partitions, then stall one partition for 20 minutes and observe what seals.
- Set the idle-partition timeout to 60 seconds, repeat the stall, and measure how much quantity arrives after the seal.
- Attempt the seal from two workers at once and confirm the conditional update lets exactly one through.
Follow-up
- A replay starts during the sealing window for a period you are about to close. What do you do, and what is the customer-visible consequence of each option?
- Your measured quantity-weighted p99.99 lateness is six hours and the invoice must be issued at 02:00 UTC on the first. How do you reconcile those two numbers?
- How would you detect that L has drifted before it costs you an hour's quantity?
Migrate a live partitioned event table without blocking ingest
usage_event is range-partitioned daily on ingested_at, holds roughly 250M rows per day across 400 live partitions, and is written at 10-40k rows/second. Two changes are required: quantity must move from double precision to numeric(20,6), and a new environment column must become NOT NULL with a default of 'production'. Ingest cannot stop. Give the ordered plan, naming for each step the lock it takes, what that lock blocks, and roughly how long it is held. Identify the one step that cannot be rolled back cleanly once traffic depends on it.
Approach
- Classify the two changes before planning anything. Adding a column with a non-volatile default has been metadata-only since PostgreSQL 11, so it is cheap. Changing double precision to numeric is not binary-coercible, so
alter column ... typerewrites every partition under ACCESS EXCLUSIVE and rebuilds its indexes; on this volume that is hours of blocked ingest and is simply not an option, which is why the plan is expand-and-contract rather than one statement. - Expand: add
quantity_numeric numeric(20,6)andenvironmentwith its default on the parent. Both are catalogue-only but both take a brief ACCESS EXCLUSIVE that cascades to partitions, so run each withlock_timeoutset to a second or two and retry on failure. A queued ACCESS EXCLUSIVE request blocks every reader behind it, which is how a metadata-only change turns into an outage. - Dual-write: deploy producer code that populates both columns on every insert, and leave it running before anything reads the new column. This is the step that cannot be reverted cleanly. Once readers depend on quantity_numeric, reverting the writer leaves rows with a null there, and the gap is only discoverable by re-reading the old column, which the readers have stopped doing.
- Backfill older partitions in batches keyed on the primary key, oldest first, committing every few thousand rows with a pause between batches, and skipping the partition still receiving writes until it rotates. Each batch is an ordinary UPDATE taking row locks only. The cost is bloat and WAL rather than blocking, so watch dead tuples and let autovacuum keep pace instead of wrapping 400 partitions in one transaction.
- Make NOT NULL cheap with the three-step form:
add constraint ... check (environment is not null) not valid(brief ACCESS EXCLUSIVE, no scan), thenvalidate constraint(SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE, scans while reads and writes continue), thenset not null, which from PostgreSQL 12 uses the validated check and skips its own full scan. Do this per partition, then on the parent. - Switch and contract: move reads to the new column behind a flag, verify over a full period that both columns agree on freshly written rows, drop the old column (metadata-only), and only then remove the dual-write. Any index on the new column goes on with CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY per partition, since CIC is not supported on a partitioned parent: create the parent index with ONLY, build each child concurrently, then ALTER INDEX ... ATTACH PARTITION until the parent index becomes valid.
Worked solution 45 min
- On a scratch cluster, build 10 partitions of 2M rows each and run a writer at a few thousand inserts/second.
- Run the naive type change and measure how long writes stall and how far ingest lag grows before killing it.
- Run the expand step with
lock_timeout = '2s'while the writer runs, and observe a clean lock timeout and retry instead of a pile-up of blocked readers. - Backfill in 5k-row batches and chart dead tuples and WAL generated per batch.
- Run the not-valid, validate, set-not-null sequence and confirm from
pg_stat_activityand timings that nothing held an exclusive lock through a full scan. - Add an index with CIC per partition plus ATTACH PARTITION and confirm the parent index reports valid only after the last attach.
Follow-up
- A CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY fails halfway through the partition list. What state is the table in, how do you detect it, and what do you run?
- The producer computes quantity itself. What happens to a request already in flight when the dual-write deploy lands, and does it matter?
- Give two queries that prove the backfill is complete: one cheap enough to run every minute, one authoritative.
Rebuild an hourly rollup with deduplication and late-arrival accounting
From usage_event (event_id, tenant_id, workspace_id, environment, sku, quantity numeric(20,6), idempotency_key, occurred_at, ingested_at), produce the values usage_rollup_hourly should hold for one tenant over one day: per (workspace_id, sku, hour_start) the deduplicated quantity_sum, event_count and source_max_ingested_at, bucketed by occurred_at. Duplicates share (tenant_id, idempotency_key). Also report, per hour, the running total across the day and the share of quantity that arrived more than two hours after the hour began. Write the query, and state which duplicates a daily unique index cannot catch.
Approach
- Deduplicate in its own CTE before any aggregation, because a SUM cannot be un-summed:
row_number() over (partition by tenant_id, idempotency_key order by ingested_at, event_id) = 1. Include the tiebreaker. Without it the surviving row is non-deterministic when two duplicates share an ingested_at, and a rollup described as deterministically recomputable then disagrees with itself between runs. - Bucket on occurred_at and nothing else, and pin the timezone explicitly.
date_trunc('hour', timestamptz)truncates in the session's TimeZone setting, so the same query run by a session set to a non-UTC zone buckets differently; use the three-argumentdate_trunc('hour', occurred_at, 'UTC')on PostgreSQL 16 or later, ordate_trunc('hour', occurred_at at time zone 'UTC') at time zone 'UTC'before that. Filterenvironment = 'production'explicitly, since metering covers three environments and billing covers one. - Aggregate to the grain with
sum(quantity),count(*)andmax(ingested_at). The last is not decoration: it is the watermark the row consumed up to, and without it there is no way to prove afterwards what a number did and did not include. - Compute the late share inside the dedup-and-aggregate step as a conditional aggregate,
sum(quantity) filter (where ingested_at > hour_start + interval '2 hours'), then divide by the hour's total. Compute the running total as a window over the already aggregated rows:sum(quantity_sum) over (partition by workspace_id, sku order by hour_start rows between unbounded preceding and current row). Running either over raw rows puts the duplicates back. - Answer the index question exactly. The unique constraint is on (ingested_day, tenant_id, idempotency_key), because a unique index on a partitioned table must contain the partition key. It therefore deduplicates only within one ingest day and admits a duplicate whose retry crosses midnight or whose replay runs a week later. That is why this CTE dedups across the whole window being recomputed, and why the dedup horizon is a correctness parameter rather than a retention cost.
- Keep the numeric type all the way through. quantity is numeric so the sums are exact; a cast to double precision anywhere in this pipeline reintroduces drift that surfaces only as a few unreconcilable cents per tenant per month, long after the query is out of anyone's mind.
Follow-up
- A dispute forces the same recompute over 40 days for one tenant. What changes about the dedup CTE's memory use and the chosen plan, and what would you do about it?
- Two runs a minute apart return different quantity_sum values for an hour that is already closed. Give two mechanisms that produce that, and the single query that distinguishes them.
- Express the same rollup incrementally so it does not re-scan the day each time the watermark advances. What does the incremental version stop being able to answer?
1–2 sentences introducing the category and what it tests.
1–2 sentences introducing the category and what it tests.
Approach
- State the consistency you need, and where you are willing to be stale.
- Choose a partition key and say what query it makes expensive.
- Name the read and write paths separately; they rarely have the same bottleneck.
Follow-up
- How does this behave when that dependency is down for an hour?
- What would you drop to keep the system up under load?
1–2 sentences introducing the category and what it tests.
1–2 sentences introducing the category and what it tests.
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.
- Work from the requirement backwards to the design.
Follow-up
- What assumption would you test first?
- How would you know your answer was wrong?
Bullet list of realistic example questions (drawn from the provided in…
Bullet list of realistic example questions (drawn from the provided interview data): Have you worked on Node.js, how many years? What are closures, how to use them, when not to use them? Explica algunos de los principios SOLID. Talk through relevant passed experience and processes. A few basic questions about the tech stacks I have worked with during the past.
Approach
- Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer contains.
- Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.
- Work from the requirement backwards to the design.
Follow-up
- What assumption would you test first?
- How would you know your answer was wrong?
Webhook fan-out with per-endpoint isolation and backoff
One domain event fans out to every matching subscription, producing a webhook_delivery row per (subscription_id, event_id, redelivery_seq). Peak unique event rate is 20k/second; attempts run five to ten times that once fan-out and retries are counted. One customer endpoint has returned 503 for six hours and its backlog holds days of events; every other customer must be unaffected. Design the delivery system: how a worker claims work, the backoff schedule, the per-endpoint circuit breaker, the queue partitioning, and whether you offer ordering per subscription. State the delivery guarantee in one sentence.
Approach
- State the guarantee first, because it determines the rest: at-least-once with a stable event_id, and the consumer documented as responsible for idempotency. Exactly-once over HTTP is not deliverable - the 200 can be lost after the customer has already committed - so any design that promises it is either lying or is really offering at-most-once.
- Partition work per subscription rather than into one global pool, with a concurrency cap per subscription. With a shared pool, the endpoint that has been dead for six hours consumes workers on retries that will fail, and every other customer's delivery latency rises: head-of-line blocking across tenants is the exact failure being designed against here.
- Claim by compare-and-set with a fencing token: UPDATE webhook_delivery SET status = 'in_flight', lease_token = $new, leased_until = now() + interval '60 seconds' WHERE delivery_id = $1 AND status IN ('pending','failed_retryable') AND (leased_until IS NULL OR leased_until < now()), and make the terminal write carry AND lease_token = $new so a paused worker's late write is rejected rather than overwriting a newer attempt. Find due work through the partial index on next_attempt_at WHERE status IN ('pending','failed_retryable'), so the scan is proportional to live rows rather than to the terminal rows that outnumber them by orders of magnitude.
- Use full jitter: sleep uniformly in [0, min(cap, base x 2^(attempt-1))]. Plain exponential backoff hands a recovering endpoint its entire backlog as one synchronised herd and knocks it over again; full jitter de-correlates it. Then check the schedule actually spans the retention you promise - with base 1 s and a 3,600 s cap, twenty attempts have an expected total elapsed time of only about 4.6 hours, so a twenty-four-hour promise needs roughly fifty-nine attempts or a larger cap.
- Trip a circuit per endpoint on consecutive failures or a failure ratio over a rolling window: stop dispatching, push next_attempt_at out or mark new deliveries dropped_circuit_open, and half-open with exactly one probe rather than a batch. Bound the backlog explicitly with a per-subscription cap or retention, and decide in advance whether a recovered endpoint receives six hours of events at full rate or a pointer telling it to fetch what it missed.
- Offer ordering only as an opt-in mode of one in-flight attempt per subscription, and price it honestly: with parallel attempts a retried event overtakes a newer one, so ordering requires serialisation, and serialisation means one slow endpoint blocks its own queue entirely. That converts a shared problem into that customer's own problem, which is the right place for it, but it is still a real cost.
Worked solution 35 min
- Compute the attempt rate: 20k unique events/second x mean fan-out x retry multiplier, and size worker pools and the per-subscription concurrency cap from it.
- Write the claim statement and the terminal write, and point at the clause that rejects a resumed worker's stale write.
- Tabulate the backoff for attempts 1 to 20 with base 1 s and cap 3,600 s, take the expected value of each full-jitter sleep as half its ceiling, and sum to get total expected elapsed coverage.
- Decide the policy for a subscription down six hours: events buffered, bytes held, and what the customer actually receives when it returns.
Follow-up
- The endpoint recovers. Does it receive six hours of events at full rate, and what does that do to it?
- Trace the exact code path by which an event belonging to one tenant could be signed and sent to another tenant's endpoint.
- A customer insists they never received an event your row marks delivered. What evidence do you have, and what does payload_digest let you prove?
Gateway p99 spikes on a five-minute cadence
edge-gateway caches each credential-to-authorisation-context decision for five minutes. p99 sits at 6 ms except for a spike to 900 ms roughly every five minutes, worst in the region with the most pods, and control-plane CPU and read latency rise in step with it. The error rate stays near zero. Customers are told a revoked credential stops authorising within 60 seconds. Give the ordered checklist that identifies the mechanism, and a fix that removes the spike without weakening the 60-second bound.
Approach
- Test periodicity before anything else: take the spike timestamps modulo the TTL in seconds. A tight cluster at a fixed offset means expiry phase, while traffic-driven spikes scatter.
- Overlay pod start times. Entries filled at first request inherit the phase of the pod that filled them, so a cohort of pods deployed together expires together and the amplitude should track cohort size rather than tenant count.
- Separate a herd from a capacity shortfall by measuring control-plane requests per second during a spike against baseline. A stampede shows a step of roughly (pods x hot keys) for one interval with hit rate collapsing to near zero, not a gradual climb that would indicate the dependency is simply undersized.
- Apply three independent controls: randomise each key's TTL by a factor drawn uniformly from something like 0.8 to 1.0 so cohorts de-phase; coalesce concurrent misses per key per pod so exactly one refresh is in flight; and serve the stale value while that refresh runs so a miss costs the stale read rather than the dependency's queue.
- Bound staleness against the published contract rather than against comfort: serve-stale is admissible only up to the 60-second revocation bound, so the TTL floor and the stale window together must stay inside it, and the published invalidation must delete the entry rather than schedule a refresh.
- Decide in advance what a miss does when the control plane is unreachable, because that is now the only uncached path: failing closed converts a dependency outage into a total outage, while extending stale service past the bound breaks the revocation promise. Pick one and configure it explicitly.
Follow-up
- Publish-subscribe invalidation is lossy under a partition. Given that, what actually enforces the 60-second bound, and what number would you put in the contract if asked to defend it?
- One tenant's key is hot enough that a single pod's coalesced refresh still matters. What changes?
- Would a shared cache tier in front of the control plane help or shift the problem, and what new failure does it add?
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.
For anything that touched live traffic, be ready to say how you would have undone it: a flag, a staged rollout, dual writes with the old path still authoritative. Once the old column is dropped or the source rows are overwritten there is no reverse, so name what you kept a copy of and for how long.
Resolve a review disagreement over a quota check
A colleague's pull request enforces a per-tenant quota by selecting the current count and then inserting when it is under the limit. You flag it as a race. They reply that the transaction already runs at repeatable read, so the snapshot makes it safe, and the tests pass. Walk through taking that disagreement to a resolution: what you write in the review, what you demonstrate rather than assert, which fix you propose and why, and what you do if they still disagree after all of it.
Approach
- Answer the claim precisely instead of restating your objection, because they have made a specific technical argument. In PostgreSQL, repeatable read is snapshot isolation; this is write skew, which snapshot isolation permits by design. Both transactions read a count that is stable within their own snapshot, insert disjoint rows that the other cannot see, and both commit, so the limit is exceeded by exactly the concurrency.
- Demonstrate rather than cite. Two psql sessions, both BEGIN ISOLATION LEVEL REPEATABLE READ, both select the count, both insert, both commit: it succeeds. Repeat at SERIALIZABLE and the second commit fails with serialization_failure, SQLSTATE 40001. That takes two minutes, ends the argument without anyone conceding a position, and leaves an artefact for the next reviewer.
- Offer the options with their costs rather than a verdict. Serialisable plus a retry loop on 40001 is correct but obliges every caller to retry and degrades under contention. An increment-and-compare on a counter row — update tenant_quota set used = used + 1 where tenant_id = $1 and used < limit returning used — is safe even at read committed, because a blocked updater re-evaluates the WHERE clause against the row version it finally locks, and zero rows returned means full. A unique or exclusion constraint that makes the surplus write fail is the third.
- Name the plausible non-fix explicitly, since it is what usually gets merged instead: folding the count into the insert as insert ... select ... where (select count(*) ...) < limit is still racy under read committed, because the subquery cannot see the other transaction's uncommitted rows. It looks atomic and is not.
- Say what you do if they still disagree: escalate the decision rather than the disagreement. Attach the reproduction, hand it to the service owner or a third reviewer, and state that you will not block the merge if the owner accepts the risk knowingly — and that you want that acceptance written down.
- Close with the general lesson worth leaving in the review thread: a passing suite is weak evidence for a concurrency claim because it runs one request at a time. Ask for a test that runs two.
Follow-up
- Write the counter-row version. Does your answer change if the quota counts child rows rather than a column?
- Under serialisable, who performs the retry, and what does the API client see if the retry also fails?
- This is the third disagreement with the same reviewer this month. What changes in how you review?
Disclose a cross-tenant webhook delivery to affected customers
An enqueue path took the subscription from one lookup and the payload from another. For nineteen minutes, webhook_delivery rows were created whose tenant_id did not match the subscription's tenant, and eleven payloads were signed and sent to four endpoints belonging to other customers. You hold payload_digest, delivery timestamps and response codes. Describe how you handle a disclosure of this kind: what the records prove, what they cannot prove, what you say before you know everything, the one code change that closes it, and which parts you personally drove.
Approach
- Bound the population before saying anything externally. The affected set is deliveries in the window where the event's tenant and the subscription's tenant differ; the ones that actually left are those with delivered_at set and a 2xx in last_response_code. Attempted and delivered are two different counts and a disclosure has to use the right one in the right sentence.
- Separate what the records prove from what they do not, and say both halves rather than the flattering one. They prove which payloads were signed, where they went, and — through payload_digest — exactly which bytes. They do not prove what the receiving system did with them, and they do not bound the window more precisely than your deploy timestamps do.
- Communicate on the facts you hold, with the scope stated as an upper bound: 'at most eleven payloads, four recipient endpoints, these fields, this window' is more useful and more honest than waiting a day for certainty. The field list matters more than the event count, because a customer cannot assess exposure from 'an event'.
- Name the code change precisely, because this class never originates in the delivery worker. Compare the event's tenant against the subscription's tenant at enqueue and again immediately before the payload is signed, and make the second comparison drop the delivery rather than log a warning. Say why one check is insufficient: the enqueue check protects against the bug you know about, the pre-signing check protects the boundary itself.
- Run the history question in parallel and say so: a query over historical deliveries for the same mismatch tells you whether this was nineteen minutes or a year, and you would rather find the second case yourself than have a customer find it after your disclosure.
- Split the response into workstreams with owners — recipients asked to delete, affected customers notified, the check landed with a test, history swept — and say which you personally drove and which you handed off. Claiming all four is not credible and claiming none is not ownership.
Follow-up
- The historical sweep finds two more instances from last year. What changes in what you have already told people?
- Who approves the wording, and what do you do when you are asked to soften the scope?
- A customer asks you to prove a redelivery contained the same bytes as the original. What do you show them?
Unblock an engineer on a job run that finished twice
An engineer two weeks into the team brings you a job_run row showing status succeeded with an exit_code written by a worker declared dead ten minutes earlier; the retry attempt also shows succeeded. They have spent a day adding logging and are no closer. You have twenty minutes and you do not want to take the keyboard. Describe how you unblock someone: the question you ask first, what you let them find themselves, the concept you name and when, and how you check the next day that they own the fix rather than having watched you produce it.
Approach
- Ask what they expect rather than what they see: which statement set status to succeeded, and what did it check before writing? That question points directly at the update's WHERE clause, which is where the answer lives, and it costs them nothing to answer, so it does not read as a test.
- Let them build the timeline themselves from the row: queued_at, started_at, leased_until, finished_at and worker_id, on both the original run and the retry. Two different worker_ids with a lease expiry between them tells the whole story, and they will see it before you say it.
- Name the concept once the evidence has earned it. A lease bounds time; it does not prevent a write. The store has to reject a stale writer, which means the update carries a fencing token the row compares — update job_run set status = 'succeeded' where run_id = $1 and lease_token = $2 and status = 'running' — and a long garbage-collection pause or a brief partition is enough to produce what they are looking at.
- Point at the second, less obvious half and let them decide it: 'lost' exists in the status enum precisely so a run whose worker vanished is not recorded as failed, because failed asserts an outcome nobody observed and the system then bills and retries on that assertion. Ask them what these two rows should have said.
- Leave them with the next step rather than the patch — a test that kills the first worker after the sandbox exits and before the row is written — and say when you are available again, so the offer is real rather than polite.
- Check ownership the next day by what they produced, not by asking if it went well: a test that reproduces the window proves they understood it; a test that only asserts the new WHERE clause proves they copied it. Ask them to explain it to a third person and listen for whether the explanation is theirs.
Follow-up
- They propose a longer lease instead of a token. What do you say, and what breaks when legitimate runs last thirty minutes?
- How can you tell whether your explanation landed or they simply deferred to you?
- The same engineer hits a variant of this next month. What did you fail to teach the first time?
- 01
A colleague's pull request enforces a per-tenant quota by selecting the current count and then inserting when it is under the limit. You flag it as a race. They reply that the transaction already runs at repeatable read, so the snapshot makes it safe, and the tests pass. Walk through taking that disagreement to a resolution: what you write in the review, what you demonstrate rather than assert, which fix you propose and why, and what you do if they still disagree after all of it.
- 02
An enqueue path took the subscription from one lookup and the payload from another. For nineteen minutes, webhook_delivery rows were created whose tenant_id did not match the subscription's tenant, and eleven payloads were signed and sent to four endpoints belonging to other customers. You hold payload_digest, delivery timestamps and response codes. Describe how you handle a disclosure of this kind: what the records prove, what they cannot prove, what you say before you know everything, the one code change that closes it, and which parts you personally drove.
- 03
An engineer two weeks into the team brings you a job_run row showing status succeeded with an exit_code written by a worker declared dead ten minutes earlier; the retry attempt also shows succeeded. They have spent a day adding logging and are no closer. You have twenty minutes and you do not want to take the keyboard. Describe how you unblock someone: the question you ask first, what you let them find themselves, the concept you name and when, and how you check the next day that they own the fix rather than having watched you produce it.
Is this an official Aircall interview guide?
No. It is PracHub's own research and practice material for the Software Engineer role at Aircall. Rounds and questions reflect what candidates have reported, not a process Aircall has published, and they change over time. Confirm the current format and scope with your recruiter.
PracHub interview research ↗How difficult is the interview process at Aircall, and how much preparation time is typical?
The interview process is moderately to highly rigorous, focusing heavily on practical engineering standards, architectural reasoning, and problem-solving speed. Most candidates dedicate 3 to 4 weeks of focused preparation, reviewing core stack concepts, system design patterns, and past project experiences.
PracHub interview research ↗What differentiates successful candidates during the technical rounds?
Successful candidates distinguish themselves by asking clarifying questions, explaining their thought process clearly, and connecting technical implementations to broader business and architectural goals. Demonstrating strong ownership and a collaborative mindset is just as important as writing correct code.
PracHub interview research ↗What is the culture like for engineering teams at Aircall?
Aircall fosters a fast-paced, entrepreneurial, and multi-cultural environment with a strong builder mentality. Teams value transparency, continuous learning, and thoughtful speed, encouraging engineers to take responsibility and drive meaningful outcomes.
PracHub interview research ↗What is the typical timeline from the initial screen to a final offer?
The entire interview pipeline generally moves efficiently over the course of 3 to 4 weeks, depending on scheduling alignment across international interview panels. Recruiters typically aim to keep candidates informed of status updates between major rounds.
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.
Vercel Software Engineer Interview Guide
Debugging practice for Vercel software engineer prep built on a reproduction you trust, narrowing to the smallest failing input, and changing one variable per run so the result stays attributable.
Scale Ai Software Engineer Interview Guide
Data structures and algorithms practice for Scale Ai candidates, where stating a bound means stating its precondition: constant-time hash lookup is an average case over keys that spread.
Notion Software Engineer Interview Guide
Data structures and algorithms practice for Notion candidates, where stating a bound means stating its precondition: constant-time hash lookup is an average case over keys that spread.
Mistral AI Software Engineer Interview Guide
Testing exercises for Mistral AI software engineer prep: choosing boundary cases over repetition, isolating tests from shared clock and ordering, and treating an intermittent failure as a defect rather than noise.