As a Software Engineer at Masabi, you are at the intersection of high-scale distributed systems and real-world infrastructure. Masabi is a global leader in mobile ticketing and Fare-Payments-as-a-Service for public transit, meaning the code you write directly impacts how millions of people navigate their cities every day. Your work ensures that complex, transactional transit systems remain reliable, secure, and accessible under high-pressure, real-time conditions.
This role is both technically demanding and strategically significant. You will be responsible for building, maintaining, and scaling the backend services that power transit agencies worldwide. You won’t just be writing features; you will be solving problems related to high-concurrency payment processing, API design, and system resilience. If you are driven by building robust software that bridges the gap between digital convenience and physical mobility, Masabi offers an environment where your engineering decisions have measurable, tangible impact.
Initial Screening Call
reportedBefore anything technical happens, someone has to decide which rung of the ladder your loop is calibrated to, and that decision sets the bar for every round after it. It comes from how you describe scope, not from your title, because titles do not convert cleanly between companies. The weak version of the answer is team size and years. The strong version names the largest change you shipped where nobody reviewed the design, what would have broken if you had been wrong, and what you were paged for. Get the level said out loud on this call, because the range and the loop both follow from it.
What to demonstrate
- Whether the scope in your own account maps onto a level the team actually has an opening at, so a mismatch ends the process cheaply rather than after four interviewers have spent a day
- Whether your title needs re-mapping: the same word describes very different amounts of independent decision-making at a twenty-person company and a ten-thousand-person one
- Whether your compensation expectation can be filled at that level in the structure the role pays in, which is why the number gets asked for before any engineer is scheduled
How to prepare
- Write down two changes from the last two years: the largest one you designed with nobody reviewing the design, and the largest one where someone more senior did. Lead with the first when scope comes up, and be ready to say which parts of the second were yours
- Ask which level the loop is calibrated to and what changes at the level above it, then plan your weeks from that answer rather than from the posting
- Settle a total-compensation range beforehand with the split named, base against bonus against equity and its vesting period, so a question about numbers gets a number instead of the word market
Conversations with Managers
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
Technical Assessment
reportedInput bounds are the part of the prompt most often skimmed, and they usually contain the answer. They tell you which complexity class is admissible, which narrows the search before you have thought about the problem itself. As a rough planning figure, a compiled language does on the order of 10^8 simple operations per second and an interpreted one roughly an order of magnitude less. So n up to about twenty admits enumerating subsets, a few thousand admits a quadratic pass, and a million admits neither: you need near-linear, or linear with a log factor. If the bounds are missing, ask for them.
What to demonstrate
- Whether the approach is justified by the stated input size rather than by whichever pattern you recognised first
- Whether you ask about the properties that change the algorithm: whether the input arrives sorted, whether duplicates occur, whether values are bounded integers, whether it all fits in memory
- Whether you can name the bottleneck in your own solution and what would remove it, even when you deliberately leave it in place
- Whether a claimed speedup is real, since memoising a recursion only helps when subproblems genuinely overlap and the state can be keyed cheaply
How to prepare
- For each algorithm you rely on, write down the largest n it handles in roughly a second, then check two of those figures by timing them in the language you will actually type in
- For two weeks, write one line naming your target complexity and the bound that justifies it before you write any code, then compare that line with what you ended up submitting
- Practise the conversion backwards: given a required O(n log n), list the mechanisms that get you there (sorting, a heap, an ordered map, divide and conquer) and choose by what the problem needs to query, not by what you used last
PracHub editorial advice for the preparation topics above.
Assuming an isolation level prevents the anomaly you actually have
Isolation levels are named by the SQL standard but implemented differently, so any claim about one is only true of a named engine. PostgreSQL defaults to READ COMMITTED, where every statement takes a fresh snapshot, so two statements inside one transaction can legitimately disagree about the same row. Its REPEATABLE READ is snapshot isolation: it removes non-repeatable and phantom reads but permits write skew, where two transactions each read a set, each conclude their own write is safe, both commit, and the combined result violates a constraint that no single row expresses. Only SERIALIZABLE closes that, and it closes it by aborting a transaction with a serialization failure (SQLSTATE 40001), which means the guarantee is theoretical unless the application has a retry loop. InnoDB's REPEATABLE READ is a different mechanism again - plain SELECTs read a consistent snapshot while locking reads and writes see the latest committed row - so a read-modify-write inside one transaction can act on a value that the transaction's own earlier SELECT never returned.
Choosing an index from the columns a query mentions rather than from how it filters and orders
A composite B-tree index on (a, b, c) can be seeked only as a left prefix: equality on a, then equality on b, then a range or an ordering on c. A query that filters on b alone cannot seek into it at all and at best gets a full scan of the index; a query that filters a and ranges on b gets no benefit from c, because the index is only sorted by c within a fixed (a, b) pair. The practical consequence is that one index per column is close to useless for multi-predicate queries while a single correctly ordered composite index turns a scan into a lookup. The ordering half is what gets missed: if the index cannot satisfy the ORDER BY, the database must read every matching row and sort before the limit can apply, so a LIMIT 20 over a million matching rows still reads a million rows.
Abandoning working code to chase the optimal solution
Get the straightforward version correct, state its complexity, and only then optimise, keeping the working version until the faster one passes the same cases. A correct quadratic solution with a stated path to linear beats a half-written optimal one that never ran.
Trusting input because it came from your own front end
Anything crossing a trust boundary is hostile: parameterise queries instead of building SQL by concatenation, validate against an allow-list rather than a deny-list, and bound the size of anything you allocate from a request. Raising this unprompted in an API or design question is a cheap and unusually strong signal.
Choose a category, try a prompt, then open its approach, worked solution or follow-up when you need it.
Write a simple program (e.g., factorial) on a whiteboard or during a s…
Write a simple program (e.g., factorial) on a whiteboard or during a screen-share.
Approach
- Walk one small example through your approach before writing the whole thing.
- Choose the data structure from the access pattern, not from familiarity.
- Name the brute-force solution and its complexity before improving on it.
Follow-up
- How does this change if the input no longer fits in memory?
- Which test case would catch an off-by-one here?
Given a snippet of poorly written code, identify bugs, suggest improve…
Given a snippet of poorly written code, identify bugs, suggest improvements, and write tests for it.
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?
- What is the worst case, and how likely is it on real data?
How do you approach testing when working on a mission-critical system?
How do you approach testing when working on a mission-critical system?
Approach
- State the target complexity and say which constraint rules the naive version out.
- Name the brute-force solution and its complexity before improving on it.
- 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?
Canonicalise a request body into a stable idempotency fingerprint
idempotency_key.request_fingerprint is a SHA-256 over the method, path and canonicalised body, and a retry whose fingerprint differs must be rejected with 422 rather than served the stored response. Write the canonicaliser. Bodies are JSON up to 256 KB nested at most 32 levels; clients vary key order, whitespace and unicode escaping, and some send 64-bit ids as JSON numbers. Produce a deterministic byte string such that semantically identical bodies match and any semantic difference does not. State your complexity and name two normalisations you refuse to perform.
Approach
- Parse once into a tree, then re-serialise under fixed rules: object keys sorted, array order preserved, one escaping convention, no insignificant whitespace. Parsing is O(n) and sorting keys is O(k log k) per object, so O(n log n) overall with O(depth) stack, and the 32-level cap is enforced during parsing because hostile nesting is how a canonicaliser becomes a stack overflow.
- Sort keys by their UTF-8 bytes and say why the obvious implementation is wrong in some runtimes: a default string comparison that orders by UTF-16 code units places surrogate pairs, meaning code points from U+10000 up, below U+E000 to U+FFFF, which is not UTF-8 byte order, so two services written in different languages disagree on the same document.
- Do not re-encode numbers through a double. IEEE-754 binary64 represents integers exactly only up to 2^53, so normalising a 19-digit id through a float changes it, and 1 against 1.0 cannot be reconciled without deciding whether they are the same value. Preserve the literal token, and require ids as strings at the API boundary if you want them comparable.
- Reject duplicate keys rather than picking one. JSON permits them and parsers disagree, most keeping the last, so any choice you make ties the fingerprint to a parser detail that the code handling the request does not necessarily share.
- Frame the hash preimage so concatenation cannot collide: delimit or length-prefix the method, path and body, otherwise one request's fields can be rearranged into another request with the same byte stream and the same fingerprint.
- Name the refusals and their consequence: no case folding, no dropping of null-valued keys, no Unicode normalisation. Each makes two different requests fingerprint alike, and the resulting failure is the worst one this table has, since the second request is answered with the first one's stored response and its effect never happens.
Worked solution 25 min
- Write the serialiser: recursive emit with a depth counter, objects sorted by UTF-8 key bytes, arrays in order, strings escaped by one fixed rule, numbers emitted as their original token.
- Run it over three bodies: the same object with keys reordered, the same object with \u0041 written as A, and one with a nested array reversed. The first two must produce identical bytes and the third must not.
- Take the id 9007199254740993, round-trip it through a double, show it returns as 9007199254740992, then state the rule that prevents this.
- Define the hash preimage explicitly with its delimiters, and construct a pair of (path, body) inputs that would collide without them.
Follow-up
- A client sends the same logical request with an extra field your API ignores. Same key, different fingerprint, so you return 422. Is that the right answer?
- Where does the fingerprint get computed relative to request decompression and the body-size limit?
- The endpoint takes 1,000 requests per second with 256 KB bodies. What does hashing cost, and does it belong at the edge or in the core service?
Denormalise tenant onto revisions and backfill it live
resource_revision (revision_id, resource_id, version, actor_user_id, change_kind, patch, request_id, created_at) has 400M rows and no tenant column; tenant_id lives only on resource. Two reads need it: a tenant-scoped audit feed ordered by created_at DESC, and an offboarding purge. Both join back to resource today. Justify adding tenant_id to resource_revision against those two reads, name the anomaly the copy introduces and the constraint that prevents it, then give the ordered migration for a live table taking 1.2k writes/second — the lock each step takes, how the backfill is batched, and where each step stops being reversible. PostgreSQL 16.
Approach
- Justify from the access path rather than from taste. Without the column, the audit feed either scans resource_revision by created_at and discards other tenants' rows, or resolves the tenant's resource_ids first and probes with them — both proportional to the tenant's whole history rather than to one page. With (tenant_id, created_at DESC, revision_id DESC) it is a seek that stops at 50 rows, and the purge becomes a ranged delete instead of a join.
- Name the cost exactly: a second copy of a fact can disagree with the first. Make the disagreement unwritable rather than documented — add UNIQUE (resource_id, tenant_id) on resource so it can serve as a foreign-key target, then FOREIGN KEY (resource_id, tenant_id) REFERENCES resource (resource_id, tenant_id) on the revision table. A revision can then only ever carry its parent's tenant.
- Step one, expand: ALTER TABLE resource_revision ADD COLUMN tenant_id BIGINT NULL, with no default, so it is a catalogue change and no rewrite. It still needs ACCESS EXCLUSIVE for an instant, and that instant queues behind the longest open transaction on the table while every later query queues behind it — set lock_timeout to 2s and retry rather than wait.
- Step two, dual-write: deploy the writer that populates tenant_id on every new revision while reads still use the join. Reversible by redeploying the previous build, because nothing reads the column yet.
- Step three, backfill: batch by primary key rather than by created_at so the cursor is dense and resumable — UPDATE resource_revision rr SET tenant_id = r.tenant_id FROM resource r WHERE r.resource_id = rr.resource_id AND rr.revision_id > $1 AND rr.revision_id <= $1 + 5000 AND rr.tenant_id IS NULL — committing per batch and persisting the cursor. Throttle on replica replay lag and on dead-tuple count, since each batch writes 5,000 new row versions. Run the backfill before the index exists so those updates can stay HOT.
- Step four, index then enforce then contract: CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY (cannot run inside a transaction block, scans the table twice, waits on open transactions, and leaves an INVALID index to drop concurrently if it fails); ADD CONSTRAINT ... CHECK (tenant_id IS NOT NULL) NOT VALID, then VALIDATE CONSTRAINT, which takes only SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE, after which SET NOT NULL uses the validated check instead of re-scanning on PostgreSQL 12 and later. Only then move the audit reads onto the column and, in a later deploy, delete the join path.
Worked solution 40 min
- Write the five steps as separate scripts and state, for each, the lock mode it acquires and the deploy it pairs with.
- On a 20M-row copy, run the ADD COLUMN while a 30-second transaction holds a lock on the table, and record how long unrelated queries queue behind it.
- Run the batched backfill at 5,000 rows, kill it mid-run, restart from the persisted cursor, and confirm no row is processed twice and none is skipped.
- Build the index concurrently under concurrent write load, then add the CHECK ... NOT VALID, VALIDATE it and SET NOT NULL, timing each.
- Compare the audit-feed plan before and after: join-and-filter versus an index seek with no Sort.
Follow-up
- The backfill is half finished and a rollback is required. What state is the table in, and what does the previous build do with a half-populated column?
- How do you verify the backfill actually finished, given rows are still being inserted while it runs?
- A resource must now be movable between tenants. What does that do to the composite foreign key and to the revisions already written?
Write the update path that detects a concurrent edit
resource carries version INT NOT NULL DEFAULT 1. resource_revision holds revision_id, resource_id, version, actor_user_id, change_kind, patch JSONB, request_id, created_at with UNIQUE (resource_id, version). outbox_event holds aggregate_type, aggregate_id, aggregate_version, event_type, payload, status. A PUT carries the version the client read. Write the exact statements for the single transaction that applies the edit, records the revision and enqueues 'resource.updated', and give the handler's branch on zero affected rows. Then say what PostgreSQL 16 does under READ COMMITTED when two of these updates hit one row at once.
Approach
- One transaction, three writes, no network call inside it: UPDATE resource SET title = $3, version = version + 1, updated_at = now() WHERE resource_id = $1 AND tenant_id = $4 AND version = $2; then INSERT the resource_revision row at version $2 + 1; then INSERT the outbox_event row at the same aggregate_version. The event goes to a table rather than a broker because no transaction spans both.
- Branch on the affected-row count before doing anything else. Zero has three causes — stale version, wrong tenant, row gone — so re-read once and map to 409 carrying the current version, or 404 for an id outside the caller's tenant, which also stops the endpoint confirming that another tenant's id exists.
- State the engine behaviour instead of assuming it. Under READ COMMITTED the second UPDATE blocks on the row lock, and when the first commits PostgreSQL re-evaluates the WHERE clause against the newly committed row, so the version predicate now fails and the statement reports zero rows. Under REPEATABLE READ the identical collision raises SQLSTATE 40001 instead, so the handler must fold both shapes into one conflict response.
- Keep UNIQUE (resource_id, version) even though the predicate already serialises writers. It is what makes a lost update unwritable if any other path ever reaches the revision table, and it converts a logic bug into 23505 rather than into a silently missing history row.
- Refuse to auto-retry the whole PUT. A retry re-reads the winner's state and reapplies an intent formed against data that no longer exists — the silent overwrite the version token was added to detect. Return the conflict; merge field-wise only if the patches are provably disjoint.
- Note that now() is the transaction timestamp in PostgreSQL, so resource.updated_at, the revision's created_at and the outbox row share one instant, which is what later makes reconciliation between the three tables unambiguous.
Follow-up
- A client sends the version it read ten minutes ago and the resource has moved three versions. What is in your 409 so it can resolve the conflict without a full re-fetch?
- Two editors, two disjoint fields, no overlap. Does your answer still refuse the second write, and should it?
- Every write now touches a second hot table. How do you keep the outbox insert and its partial index from becoming the write bottleneck at 1.2k writes/second?
Explain the concept of 'this' in JavaScript.
Explain the concept of 'this' in JavaScript.
Approach
- Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.
- State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
- Work from the requirement backwards to the design.
Follow-up
- How would you know your answer was wrong?
- What assumption would you test first?
Define the differences between PUT and POST operations in a REST API.
Define the differences between PUT and POST operations in a REST API.
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
- How would you know your answer was wrong?
- What assumption would you test first?
Evolve the resource contract without breaking integrations you cannot upgrade
GET /v1/resources/{id} returns status from a four-value enum ('draft','active','archived','deleted'), a numeric version, and the body inline. Consumers are a browser app you deploy and roughly 300 server-side integrations, some untouched for two years, that switch exhaustively on status and parse ids as JSON numbers. You must add a 'pending_review' status, move bodies over 256 KB to a body_ref pointer, and expose per-field change history from resource_revision. Specify the compatibility policy, the wire changes, how both generations are served, and the evidence that lets you remove the old shape.
Approach
- Write the policy first and date it: fields are added, never retyped or repurposed; consumers ignore unknown fields; an unknown enum value maps to a documented fallback; nothing is removed until telemetry shows no caller reads it. Then say the uncomfortable part out loud - v1 shipped without the unknown-value rule, so 300 running integrations have no fallback, and no server change can install one into code that is already deployed.
- That single fact forces per-request negotiation rather than a server-side default. Keep one internal model and select a serialiser from an explicit version in the request, and default a caller that sends nothing to the oldest supported version. Defaulting to the newest is the change that breaks every integration that never asked for anything, on the day you ship.
- Downgrade 'pending_review' for old callers to the nearest state they already handle, 'draft', and state the loss explicitly: those integrations cannot see review state and will treat the resource as editable. If that is unacceptable for one integration, the remedy is moving it to the new version, not a cleverer projection - there is no mapping that invents a state the client has no code for.
- Make the body change additive. Old callers keep
bodyinline; the new shape addsbody_refand a size field, and resources over the limit are served to old callers by resolving the pointer server-side or by refusing with a documented code, chosen once and published. Never repurposebodyto carry the pointer: a client that renders it shows a storage key to a user, and that failure is silent, where a missing field would have been loud. While you are here, serialise BIGINT ids as strings in the new shape - a browser parsing JSON numbers gets IEEE-754 doubles, exact only to 2^53 - and treat that as its own breaking change requiring the same negotiation, not a quiet fix. - Add change history as a separate sub-resource, GET /v1/resources/{id}/revisions, keyset-paginated over (resource_id, version) rather than as an array inside the resource. A field added to a hot response is paid for by every caller including those that never read it, and an unbounded array inside a cached object destroys the size assumptions the cache was configured with.
- Retire on evidence rather than on a date alone: count requests per negotiated version per credential, publish a Sunset header (RFC 8594) with the removal date and a link to the migration, contact the credentials still on the old version, then answer 410 Gone once it is removed. Keep each version's serialiser under snapshot tests so a refactor cannot change v1's bytes by accident.
Worked solution 40 min
- Write and date the compatibility policy as five rules, then mark which of them v1 callers cannot honour.
- Choose the negotiation mechanism and the default for an unversioned request, and justify the default in one sentence.
- Write the downgrade table: new state to old state, new body shape to old body shape, and what is lost in each direction.
- Specify the revisions sub-resource: its URL, its cursor, and why it is not a field on the resource.
- Write the sunset plan: the per-version per-credential metric, the header, the lead time, and the terminal status code.
Follow-up
- An old integration submits a status transition while the resource is really in 'pending_review'. What does the write path accept, and what does it reject?
- Two years on you want to delete the v1 serialiser. What evidence makes that safe, and who must be contacted before it happens?
- How would you test against a two-year-old integration rather than against today's source?
Exports duplicate a row range about once a week
Roughly once a week an export writes a file containing a duplicated range of rows. The affected job_run rows show attempt = 1, status = succeeded, one started_at, and a lease_owner naming a different host from the one whose logs show the job starting. Leases last 30 seconds and are heartbeated every 10 from inside the handler; lease_expires_at is computed on the worker and compared against the database's now(). Find the mechanism, and give a fix that holds even if you cannot fix the clocks.
Approach
- Start from the fact that eliminates the obvious answer. attempt = 1 means no retry was recorded, so this is not a re-run after failure; two workers ran the same row concurrently and the takeover path never touched the counter. lease_owner naming a host other than the one that started the job is the same statement from the other side.
- Enumerate the mechanisms that cause a premature takeover, then find the signal that separates them. Either the lease genuinely expired because the heartbeat did not fire, which is what happens when the heartbeat runs on the handler's own thread and the handler makes a long blocking call, or it only appeared expired because two clocks disagree, since lease_expires_at is written from the worker's clock and evaluated against the database's. The discriminator is the distribution: incidents clustered on the longest exports indict the heartbeat, incidents clustered on one host indict skew. Measure both, and measure each host's offset against the database directly.
- Read the reclaim query precisely. In PostgreSQL now() is transaction start time, not statement time, so a reclaimer holding a long transaction compares against an older timestamp than expected; clock_timestamp() is the statement-time function. This is worth ruling in or out before you redesign anything, because it changes which rows look expired.
- Remove the second clock rather than trying to synchronise it. Issue and extend the lease in the database, with lease_expires_at = now() + interval '30 seconds' in both the claim and the heartbeat, so exactly one clock is ever compared and worker skew stops mattering to this predicate.
- Accept that a lease can still expire under a slow worker, because a lease cannot distinguish slow from dead, and fence the work. Carry a monotonically increasing lease generation and make every write the handler performs conditional on still holding it, as UPDATE ... WHERE job_run_id = $1 AND lease_owner = $2 AND lease_generation = $3, so a displaced worker's writes affect zero rows and it aborts instead of duplicating.
- Make the handler's writes idempotent independently of all that: give each exported chunk a natural key of (job_run_id, batch_start) with a unique constraint so a second copy conflicts rather than appends, move the heartbeat off the handler's thread, and increment attempt on takeover so the event is visible in a metric.
Follow-up
- The displaced worker has already streamed half the file to object storage. What makes that side effect safe to repeat?
- You now count takeovers. What alert fires on that counter, and at what threshold?
- What breaks if you simply raise the lease to five minutes?
For someone fluent in a dynamic language who has shipped real work but has never had to say what the runtime is doing underneath. The week is built on measuring and deliberately breaking things, because the questions that expose this background are the ones where the interviewer asks why a second time.
Prepare, practise & reflect
One practical outcome each day. Spend longer where you need it.
0 / 7 done01Measure before reasoning
- Take a slow piece of your own code, write down in advance where you believe the time goes, then profile it and record how wrong the guess was. The cost is usually an allocation you did not notice or an accidental quadratic membership test.
- Replace one list membership test inside a loop with a set and measure at a thousand, ten thousand and a hundred thousand elements, confirming the shape of the curve rather than only that it got faster.
- Write down the three quantities you can now measure instead of assert: wall time, peak memory, and call count for the function you suspected.
Deliverable: A before-and-after profile of real code plus a written note on the size of the gap between the guess and the measurement.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗02References, copies, and the bugs they produce
- Write the function with a mutable default argument, call it three times, and explain the accumulating result: the default is evaluated once when the function is defined, so every call shares one object.
- Build a nested structure, take a shallow copy, mutate an inner element, and show that both views changed, because a shallow copy duplicates the container and not the elements. Then fix it with a deep copy and state the cost you just accepted.
- Write two functions, one mutating its argument in place and one rebinding the local name, and predict the caller's view of each before running it. That single distinction produces most of the bugs that pass their tests.
Deliverable: Three small programs whose output you predicted correctly before running, each with a one-line statement of the rule underneath.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗03Types, once, in a language that checks them
- Port one module you have already written, roughly a hundred lines, into a statically typed language, and record every place the compiler demanded an answer your original had left implicit: a value that can be absent, a numeric width, a case never handled.
- Write the same signature in both languages and state what the static one guarantees before the program runs and what it does not, since it will not save you from a wrong algorithm or an index out of range.
- Write the difference between an interface satisfied by declaration and one satisfied structurally, with one case each where the other approach would miss the mistake.
Deliverable: One module in two languages plus a list of the questions the type checker forced you to answer.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗04Concurrency, starting with what actually runs at the same time
- Run the same CPU-bound function across four threads and four processes and measure both. Under the default CPython build the threaded version will not speed up, because only one thread executes bytecode at a time; the process version will. Check which build you are on first, since free-threaded builds remove that lock and change the result.
- Then run a blocking I/O workload across four threads and measure it speeding up, because the interpreter releases that lock around blocking calls, which is why treating threads as useless is wrong as a general claim.
- Build the lost update: two threads each incrementing a shared counter a hundred thousand times, and show a final value below the expected sum, because an increment is a load, an add and a store and the thread can be suspended between them. Fix it with a lock and then measure what the lock costs.
Deliverable: Three measurements, threads against processes on CPU work, threads on I/O work, and a demonstrated lost update, each with the mechanism written underneath.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗05Debugging as a procedure rather than an instinct
- Work one real failure as a bisection: find a revision or an input size where it is good and one where it is bad, halve repeatedly, and state the two assumptions bisection needs, that the property changes exactly once across the range and that the test is reliable.
- Minimise one failing input to the smallest version that still fails, and record how many rounds it took.
- Keep a hypothesis log for one bug in three columns, what I believe, what would disprove it, what I observed, and stop yourself the first time you are about to change two things at once.
Deliverable: One bug worked to root cause with a written hypothesis log and a minimised reproducing input.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗06Tests that catch the bug you are about to write
- Implement an LRU cache with a capacity bound, then write the three test cases that would catch an off-by-one in eviction: insert exactly capacity items and assert nothing was evicted, insert one more and assert the least recently used key is the one gone, and read an old key just before that insert so the eviction victim changes.
- Add a property test comparing your implementation against a deliberately slow reference, an ordered list scanned linearly, over a few thousand random operation sequences, because a slow reference finds the cases you would not have thought to write.
- Write one numeric test that fails under exact equality and passes with a tolerance, and state why the tolerance has to be relative rather than absolute once the magnitudes grow.
Deliverable: An LRU implementation with three boundary tests, one property test against a slow reference, and one tolerance-based numeric test.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗07Debug something broken, out loud
- Have someone plant three defects in a two-hundred-line program, an off-by-one, a shared mutable state bug, and a wrong error-handling path, then find them while narrating, under a fixed rule: state the hypothesis before touching anything.
- Time each one and record which tool found it, reading, a printed value, a debugger, or a test, because the question asked in interviews is how you would find it rather than what it was.
- Write the sentence you will use when you do not yet know the cause, one that names the next measurement instead of offering a guess.
Deliverable: A recorded debugging session with time-to-find per defect and the method that found each.
Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗Expand any day for tasks and deliverables. Your progress is saved on this device.
Engineers over-index on what they repaired. A stronger answer covers something you knowingly left broken: the alert you tuned down, the data inconsistency you documented instead of chasing, the cleanup you deferred past two quarters. Give the reasoning and the condition that would have reopened it, so it reads as a decision and not as neglect.
Tell us about a major contribution you made that significantly helped …
Tell us about a major contribution you made that significantly helped your team.
Approach
- State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
- Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
- Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
Follow-up
- What would you do differently if you ran that again?
- How did you know your change caused the improvement?
How do you handle the pressure of releasing software that is already i…
How do you handle the pressure of releasing software that is already in production and being used by others?
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 would you do differently if you ran that again?
- What did you decide not to do, and why?
Describe a work situation where you had a disagreement with a team mem…
Describe a work situation where you had a disagreement with a team member and how you resolved it.
Approach
- Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
- State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
- Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
Follow-up
- What did you decide not to do, and why?
- How did you know your change caused the improvement?
- 01
Tell us about a major contribution you made that significantly helped your team.
- 02
How do you handle the pressure of releasing software that is already in production and being used by others?
- 03
Describe a work situation where you had a disagreement with a team member and how you resolved it.
Is this an official Masabi interview guide?
No. It is PracHub's own research and practice material for the Software Engineer role at Masabi. Rounds and questions reflect what candidates have reported, not a process Masabi has published, and they change over time. Confirm the current format and scope with your recruiter.
PracHub interview research ↗How long does the interview process typically take?
The process can vary, but most candidates move through the stages within a few weeks. Consistency and responsiveness on both sides are key to a smooth experience.
PracHub interview research ↗Is the technical interview focused on algorithms?
Not primarily. Expect more focus on practical tasks like refactoring, API design, and testing, rather than complex whiteboard algorithmic challenges.
PracHub interview research ↗What is the best way to prepare for the cultural fit round?
Be authentic and ready to discuss your past team experiences. Highlight instances where you were a supportive teammate, handled feedback well, or contributed to a team's success.
PracHub interview research ↗What makes a candidate stand out?
Successful candidates are those who ask insightful questions, show a clear understanding of trade-offs in their technical choices, and communicate their thought process clearly during collaborative sessions.
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.
Attentive Software Engineer Interview Guide
Debugging practice for Attentive 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.
Whatnot Software Engineer Interview Guide
Debugging practice for Whatnot 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.
Faire Software Engineer Interview Guide
Operational practice for Faire software engineer candidates: picking the signal that catches a bad release early, and telling a latency regression apart from a shift in traffic mix.
Lowe's Software Engineer Interview Guide
Data structures and algorithms practice for Lowe's candidates, where stating a bound means stating its precondition: constant-time hash lookup is an average case over keys that spread.