A Software Engineer at Transport for NSW plays a pivotal role in maintaining and evolving the infrastructure that keeps a state moving. Your work directly impacts millions of commuters, whether you are developing applications that provide real-time travel data, building the strategic models that simulate traffic flow, or engineering the digital foundations for critical transport assets like bridges and pavement networks.
This role is uniquely challenging because it sits at the intersection of high-scale public service and complex engineering requirements. You will not just be writing code; you will be architecting solutions that must be resilient, scalable, and secure enough to handle the daily demands of a major global transport network. The environment is highly collaborative, requiring you to bridge the gap between technical implementation and the operational needs of stakeholders across the transport cluster.
The role of a Software Engineer at Transport for NSW often involves working on cross-functional teams where your technical decisions have direct, tangible impacts on public safety and service reliability.
Initial Screening
reportedHalf of this call is the part candidates treat as small talk: start date, notice period, work authorisation and its timing, location and time zone, on-call, and the number. Those are what kill offers late, after several engineers have each spent a day. Surfacing a hard constraint now costs you nothing and occasionally buys you something, since a loop compressed to fit a competing deadline can usually only be arranged if it is asked for early. The common failure is deflecting the compensation question twice, then discovering at offer stage that the band never reached your number.
What to demonstrate
- Whether your hard constraints are compatible with the role before a loop gets booked: earliest start, notice period, what authorisation you hold and when it needs action, days on site, willingness to carry a pager
- Whether you give a compensation range with something behind it, such as current total compensation or a competing timeline, rather than leaving the band untested
- Whether your stated timeline is real, since a competing deadline raised now is something scheduling can sometimes work around and the same deadline raised at offer stage usually is not
How to prepare
- Write each constraint down in one line before the call and state them as facts rather than negotiating them live under a question you were not expecting
- Set your range from two or three current data points for that level and location, and name the structure you are quoting in, so the number is comparable to the one they are holding
- If another process is running, say where it stands and by when, and ask directly whether this loop can be scheduled inside that window
Technical Assessments
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
Panel Interviews
reportedA day like this is several different games in a row, and the expensive mistake is carrying the previous one into the next room. Coding rewards narrow precision and finishing inside a timer. Design rewards breadth, stated assumptions and naming what you are deliberately not building. Behavioural rewards specificity about people and decisions. Candidates who over-engineer a coding problem they were supposed to finish, or who start sketching class hierarchies before anyone has agreed what the system has to do, are usually still playing the last round. Between rooms, name out loud which game the next one is.
What to demonstrate
- Whether the coding round ends with something that runs and has been traced against a degenerate input, rather than an extensible design that was never finished
- Whether a design discussion opens by agreeing on traffic shape, read-to-write ratio and what is allowed to be stale, instead of proceeding from an architecture you arrived with
- Whether a behavioural answer names a person, a disagreement and what you did about it, rather than describing the system the story happened inside
- Whether the opening habits still appear late in the day: restating the problem, asking for constraints, saying the plan before typing
How to prepare
- Book three mocks of different types back to back on one afternoon and ask each interviewer afterwards which round you answered in the wrong mode
- Write a three-line opening script per round type — coding: restate, name the approach and its cost, then type; design: ask for scale, read-write mix and what must not break; behavioural: name the person, the stakes and the decision — and run it off a card so the switch is mechanical rather than remembered
- Practise coding with a timer you do not extend, stopping when it stops, so the trained reflex is to finish a correct solution rather than to keep improving one
PracHub editorial advice for the preparation topics above.
Treating the database as the truth about physical stock
Every system in this domain drifts from reality, through miscounts, unrecorded damage, mis-scans and theft, so a design with no adjustment path forces the drift somewhere worse. The usual shape is a CHECK constraint or application guard that clamps a position at zero: the negative that would have exposed a missing receipt is silently swallowed, and the first visible symptom is a picker standing at an empty location for an order the system promised. The correct posture is to let the invariant fail loudly - record the cycle-count adjustment as a first-class movement with its own reason code, surface the variance, and let planning see that this location is unreliable - because an adjustment that is indistinguishable from a normal pick destroys the only signal that would have found the root cause. A related version of the same mistake is deleting or updating a movement row to fix a mistake, which leaves the position correct and the history a lie.
Judging delivery windows and cut-offs in UTC
A delivery appointment, a receiving cut-off and a same-day promise are all statements about local wall-clock time at a specific stop, so evaluating them in UTC misclassifies on-time performance for any leg that crosses a zone, and misses cut-offs by an hour on the two days a year a region changes offset. The subtlety that catches experienced engineers is that converting a future local time to a UTC instant at write time bakes in the offset rules as they were known then: when a jurisdiction changes its rules, an appointment stored that way silently moves, which is why a future window is better stored as local wall time plus an IANA zone identifier and resolved at read time, while a past event is correctly stored as an instant. Duration arithmetic needs the same care, because a transit that spans a DST boundary is genuinely 23 or 25 hours long in local terms even though the elapsed instant count is unchanged. Storing only a date with no zone - common on partner feeds - is the version of this that cannot be fixed downstream, so the zone has to be captured at ingestion.
Tests that assert on the implementation rather than the behaviour
Assert on what a caller can observe, not on the number of internal calls or the shape of a private field. A test that breaks on every refactor but still passes when the answer is wrong costs more than it protects.
Issuing one query per row of a result set
Fetch related rows in a single batched query keyed by the ids you already hold, or join them into the original query. A per-row round trip multiplies network latency by the row count, and it looks perfectly fine against the ten rows in your development database.
Choose a category, try a prompt, then open its approach, worked solution or follow-up when you need it.
Split an order across the fewest nodes that can fill it
A fulfilment order has L lines, L up to 25. After filtering by capability, service time and stock, N candidate nodes remain; N is usually under 14 but can reach 200. Each node covers a known subset of the lines in full. Return a minimum-size set of nodes covering every line, tie-broken by total distance. Give an exact algorithm for the small case with its exact cost in operations and bytes, say precisely why enumerating node subsets stops working, and give what you ship when N is 200.
Approach
- Name it: this is minimum-cardinality set cover, which is NP-hard, so the useful move is choosing which parameter you are exponential in rather than hunting for a polynomial exact algorithm. Enumerating subsets of nodes is 2^N and correct — at N = 14 that is 16,384 subsets and finishes instantly, which is exactly why it survives review and then fails in production at N = 200, where 2^200 is about 1.6e60.
- Be exponential in L instead, because L is the parameter you bound. Index the DP by the set of lines still uncovered:
dp[rem]is the cheapest way to cover the lines inrem, withdp[0] = (0, 0)and the value a(node_count, total_distance)pair compared lexicographically. Letbbe the lowest set bit ofrem; any cover must contain some node that stocks lineb, so the transition ranges only over those nodes:dp[rem] = min over v with b in cover(v) of dp[rem & ~cover(v)] + (1, dist(v)). Worst case O(2^L * N) — at L = 25 and N = 14 that is 33,554,432 states times 14, about 4.7e8 transitions — and the lowest-bit restriction cuts the real branching factor to the nodes stocking one specific line. - Quote the memory for what you actually store, not for a count array alone. Over 2^25 masks you need three dense arrays:
uint8node count (33.5 MB),uint32total distance (134.2 MB, integer metres so the tie-break compares exactly and the array stays fixed-width), anduint8chosen node (33.5 MB, since N <= 200 fits a byte) — about 201 MB, roughly six times the 33.5 MB that a bare count array would suggest. The same layout at L = 20 is 6.3 MB, which is why this is comfortable up to about 20 lines and needs a deliberate decision at 25. - Reconstruction is free in this formulation and needs no parent-mask array: because every transition eliminates the lowest uncovered line, the predecessor of
remunder the stored choicevis exactlyrem & ~cover(v), so walkremfrom the full mask down to 0 emittingchoice[rem]. If the reachable state count is far below 2^L — coverage sets are usually highly correlated — a top-down memoized recursion over a hash map trades the 201 MB for roughly 40-60 bytes per visited state; measure the visited count first, because a hash map that ends up touching most masks is strictly worse than the dense arrays. Add a branch-and-bound cut ofceil(popcount(rem) / max_v popcount(cover(v) & rem)), which prunes long before the theoretical bound bites. - When exact is out of reach, ship greedy with a stated guarantee: repeatedly take the node covering the most currently-uncovered lines, using bitset popcounts, O(N * ceil(L/64)) word operations per pick and at most min(N, L) picks. Greedy is within H(L) <= ln L + 1 of optimal (Chvatal), and no polynomial algorithm achieves (1 - o(1)) ln L unless P = NP (Dinur and Steurer, 2014) — so effort belongs in the pre-filter and the tie-break, not in a cleverer heuristic. At L = 25 the bound is H(25), about 3.82x worst case, while the realistic gap on correlated coverage sets is zero or one node.
- Close on the objective, because fewest nodes is not cheapest. Two shipments from distant nodes routinely cost more than three from near ones, and a split also costs a second box, a second carrier pickup and a worse customer experience. If cost is the real objective it is weighted set cover — greedy by cost divided by newly-covered lines, same logarithmic bound — and if a node can cover a line only partially, the line mask is no longer sufficient state, since you must track remaining quantity per line; that is the point at which you stop hand-rolling and either restrict splits or hand an MILP to a solver with a time budget.
Worked solution 40 min
- Write
cover(v)as an L-bit mask per node and confirm that the union of all masks equals the full mask, otherwise the order is unfillable and the answer is a backorder, not a cover. - Implement the DP over uncovered masks with the lowest-uncovered-line transition, the
(node_count, total_distance)value and thechoicearray, then measure resident memory and wall time at L = 20 and L = 25 against the quoted 6.3 MB and 201 MB. - Implement greedy separately and run both on 10,000 random instances with L = 12, N = 10, comparing sizes.
- Construct the textbook instance where greedy is strictly worse than optimal — nested sets of geometrically decreasing size plus two disjoint halves — and confirm your greedy reproduces the gap.
- Add the distance tie-break to both and confirm the exact path returns the cheapest minimum-size cover, not merely a minimum-size one.
Follow-up
- The pre-filter is what keeps N small. What is in it, and what happens to your exact path the day someone loosens it?
- One node can cover a line only partially. Show where the bitmask formulation breaks and what state replaces it.
- You have 40 milliseconds inside a checkout call. Which of these runs there, and what runs asynchronously afterwards?
Trace a suspect lot forward to every shipped order line
lot_edge(parent_lot_id, child_lot_id) has 400 million rows with btree indexes on both (parent_lot_id, child_lot_id) and (child_lot_id, parent_lot_id). lot_shipment(lot_id, order_line_id) maps lots to shipped lines. Given one suspect received lot, return every downstream order_line_id. The reachable subgraph can reach 2 million lots and 12 levels; the full edge table does not fit in memory. Give the traversal, its complexity in terms of the reachable subgraph, and what you do if the data contains a cycle.
Approach
- Genealogy is a directed acyclic graph, not a tree: a production run consumes several lots and one lot splits across many shipments, so a node is reached by several paths and a tree traversal revisits it combinatorially. Breadth-first from the suspect lot over the
(parent_lot_id, ...)index, with a hash set of visited lot ids, is O(V' + E') where V' and E' count only the reachable subgraph — 2 million 8-byte ids is 16 MB of payload and a few tens of MB with open-addressing overhead, which is why the visited set is affordable and the edge table's 400 million rows never enter memory. - Batch each level into one indexed read. Issue
WHERE parent_lot_id = ANY($1)with a few thousand parents per call instead of a query per node: at 12 levels and 2 million nodes, per-node round trips dominate the wall clock entirely, and the recall's deadline is a real-world response time, not a query-plan aesthetic. The batch size is the tuning knob between round-trip count and per-statement planning cost. - Keep the visited set even though the schema says DAG. Rework and repack loops — material returned into an earlier lot — do occur, and an unguarded traversal on a cyclic edge set does not terminate; a set membership test is O(1) and turns a hang into a correct answer plus a data-quality alert. Also cap the traversal by level and by node count, and fail loudly on the cap rather than returning a partial set silently.
- Join to
lot_shipmentonce at the end over every visited lot id, not over the leaves and not per node. A lot is routinely both shipped and consumed: half a lot goes out on an order line while the other half is repacked into a child lot, so it has alot_shipmentrow and outgoing edges at the same time and is not a leaf. Restricting the join to nodes with no outgoing edges drops exactly those order lines, which is under-recall — the one failure mode this trace is not allowed to have. One bulk join against an index onlot_idover the whole visited set is a single pass; per-node lookups multiply the round-trip problem by the number of visited lots. - State the semantics honestly: reachability answers which shipped lines could contain material from the suspect lot, and without propagating edge quantities it is a superset of physical containment. For a recall that is the correct direction of error — over-recall, never under-recall — and saying so is the point, because a trace that returns quickly and incompletely will be believed. The upstream question, which received lots are in a suspect shipped unit, is the same traversal over the reverse index, which is why both indexes exist.
Follow-up
- A recursive CTE would express this in ten lines. What is its cost here if the index on the traversal column is missing, and how would you notice?
- You need the quantity of suspect material in each downstream line, not just reachability. What has to be on the edge, and what does that do to the traversal?
- The traversal must run while a production run is writing new edges. What does a consistent answer mean here, and what do you cut it at?
Fold late out-of-order status events into a monotonic leg state
Leg statuses form the chain planned < tendered < accepted < picked_up < in_transit < delivered, with exception and cancelled outside it. You ingest 300 million observation_event rows a day carrying subject_id (leg), observed_status, occurred_at, received_at, clock_offset_ms and dedupe_key; five percent arrive over an hour late and a tail arrives a day late. Write the merge that produces each leg's current status, prove the result depends only on the set of events and not their order, and state the per-event cost.
Approach
- Define the per-leg state as a tuple ordered totally:
(status_rank, occurred_at, source_priority, event_id), and definemerge(a, b)as the maximum under that order. Rank leads;occurred_atand the rest only break ties. The proof is then one line: maximum over a total order is idempotent, commutative and associative, so the state space withmergeis a join-semilattice and the fold over any permutation of the event set yields the same value. That is also why no global sort is needed — the O(n log n) disappears and the fold is O(1) per event, O(distinct legs) state. - Rank before time, deliberately.
occurred_atis device-reported and sometimes wrong; if it led the comparison, the leg's status would be handed to whichever device has the most badly skewed clock. Ranking first means a bad clock can only reorder events within one rank. Correctoccurred_atbyclock_offset_mswhere it was measured, and where the offset exceeds a threshold keep the observation but bar it from winning a tie — the event is still evidence, it just stops being authority. - Make the lattice total, because
exceptionandcancelledare not points on the chain andmaxover a partial order is undefined for incomparable pairs. Modelcancelledas an absorbing top element, and carryexceptionas a boolean flag merged by OR alongside the rank rather than as a rank of its own — otherwise an exception at rank 4 either blocksdeliveredat rank 6 or is erased by it, and both are wrong. A product of semilattices is a semilattice, so the order-insensitivity argument still holds over the tuple. - Deduplicate on
dedupe_keyeven though the merge is idempotent. Idempotence covers a byte-identical redelivery; a partner replaying a window with a freshevent_idis not identical, and the tie-break would let the replay displace the original for no reason. Dedupe on the stable key, then fold — both halves are needed, and conflating them is the usual defect. - Partition the stream by
subject_idso all events for one leg land on one partition: broker ordering guarantees are per-partition only, and while a commutative merge makes interleaving harmless, a concurrent read-modify-write on the same leg row is still a lost update. Where that cannot be guaranteed, make the write a compare-and-set on a version column, or a conditional update that only raises the state. Because the state is mergeable, shard maps combine cleanly and replaying the whole day converges to the same answer — which is what makes reprocessing safe. - Say where genuine regressions live: a delivered shipment that is refused and returns is a new leg, not a rank decrease. Monotonicity is only sound if real reversals are modelled as new objects, and keeping every superseded observation is what lets you answer the dispute later, so the fold discards nothing — it marks losers
superseded.
Follow-up
- An event arrives a week late for a leg already closed and invoiced. Does it change the status, the on-time metric, both, or neither?
- Two events for one leg have the same rank and the same
occurred_atfrom different sources. What decides, and is that decision stable across a replay? - How would you test order-insensitivity rather than assert it?
Attribute multi-stop freight cost without fanning it out
shipment_leg(leg_id, shipment_id, sequence_no, linehaul_cost_cents, accessorial_cost_cents, actual_arrive_at) joins to fulfilment_order_line through leg_order_line(leg_id, order_line_id, allocated_weight_g). One multi-stop truckload leg carries 40 order lines. The current report SUMs linehaul_cost_cents after joining all three tables and returns roughly forty times the real freight spend. Write the query that returns cost per order for one month, explain the fan-out in terms of the join's row count, and make the per-order amounts sum exactly to the leg totals in integer cents.
Approach
- Name the cardinality: joining shipment_leg to leg_order_line produces one row per (leg, line) pair, so the result has SUM over legs of lines-per-leg rows rather than one row per leg. SUM(linehaul_cost_cents) over that result counts each leg's cost once per line it carries, which is why 40 lines gives 40 times the spend. The bug is not the SUM, it is aggregating a parent measure across a child-expanded row set.
- Compute a share before aggregating anything. In one pass: leg.linehaul_cost_cents * b.allocated_weight_g / SUM(b.allocated_weight_g) OVER (PARTITION BY b.leg_id), which keeps the denominator local to the leg and needs no self-join.
- Do the division in integer cents and settle the remainder deliberately. Floor each share, then distribute the leftover cents one each by descending remainder, ordered by a stable tiebreak such as order_line_id. Floating-point shares leave a residue that makes the freight accrual miss by a cent per leg, which costs more to investigate than the freight.
- Aggregate to the order only after the share exists: GROUP BY order_id over the per-line allocated cents. Restrict the month on shipment_leg.actual_arrive_at, not on the order date, so a leg is attributed in the period it actually ran.
- Index for the shape of the query: leg_order_line needs (leg_id) for the window partition and (order_line_id) for the reverse lookup, and shipment_leg needs an index on actual_arrive_at to bound the month without a full scan.
- Apply the same treatment to accessorial_cost_cents separately. Accessorials such as a detention charge often belong to one stop rather than to the whole leg, so weight-sharing them across every line on the load misattributes cost even though the total ties out.
Follow-up
- A line is cancelled after the leg ran. Does its share of the freight disappear, move to the remaining lines, or stay as a cost with no revenue?
- Weight is the wrong basis for a light bulky pallet. What would you use instead, and does the reconciliation check still hold?
- The carrier invoice arrives three weeks later and differs from the rated cost. Where does the correction land, and does it re-run this allocation?
Write the reconciliation query that finds ledger and position variance
inventory_movement(movement_id, item_id, node_id, lot_id, state, delta_qty) is the ledger; inventory_position(item_id, node_id, lot_id, state, qty, version, last_movement_id, reconciled_through_movement_id) is its running sum, written in the same transaction as each movement. Write one query that reports every key whose stored qty disagrees with the sum of its movements, including keys present in only one of the two tables, bounded by a watermark movement_id you pass in. State what the job does with each variance, and how you avoid re-summing four billion rows every night.
Approach
- Aggregate once and join once: a CTE doing SELECT item_id, node_id, lot_id, state, SUM(delta_qty) AS ledger_qty FROM inventory_movement WHERE movement_id <= :w GROUP BY 1,2,3,4, then FULL OUTER JOIN inventory_position USING those four columns. One pass plus one hash aggregate, O(n) in movements scanned; a correlated subquery per position row instead costs one index scan per key and is orders of magnitude slower at 40 million keys.
- Use FULL OUTER JOIN, not LEFT. A key with movements and no position row is the signature of a lost position update, and a position row with no movements is the signature of a write that bypassed the ledger. Both disappear under a LEFT JOIN from either side.
- Compare with IS DISTINCT FROM and COALESCE the join keys out of both sides, so a missing row reads as a variance rather than as NULL = NULL evaluating to unknown and being filtered away.
- Run both sides in one snapshot: either a single statement, or a REPEATABLE READ transaction. Reading positions in one transaction and movements in another manufactures variances for every key written in between.
- Make it incremental with reconciled_through_movement_id: sum only movements in (reconciled_through, :w] and add that delta to the previously verified total. The catch is that sequence values are handed out before commit, so a movement whose id is below :w can become visible after the scan and would then never be re-summed. Set :w to a max(movement_id) observed a few minutes earlier, beyond the longest write transaction, and full-scan one partition per night on a rotation as a backstop.
- A variance is reported, not repaired. Rewriting qty to match the ledger hides the double-applied retry that caused it; only a physical count may produce a cycle_count_adjust movement, and the location should be flagged unreliable to planning until it is counted.
Worked solution 25 min
- Write the aggregate CTE with the watermark predicate, then the FULL OUTER JOIN and the IS DISTINCT FROM filter, projecting COALESCE(m.item_id, p.item_id) and both quantities.
- Seed a fixture with four cases: agreeing key, disagreeing key, movements with no position row, position row with no movements.
- Run it and confirm exactly three rows come back, with the agreeing key absent.
- Rewrite the same comparison as an incremental sum from reconciled_through_movement_id and confirm it reports the same three keys on a second run after new movements land.
Follow-up
- The job finds 14 variances, all on one node, all negative. What do you look at first, and what would make you suspect the reconciliation job itself rather than the data?
- How do you run this without the nightly scan competing with the ATP read path for buffer cache and I/O?
- What does the query return for a key whose only movements are a receipt and its exact reversal, and is that row worth reporting?
How do you ensure your code remains scalable as user demand fluctuates…
How do you ensure your code remains scalable as user demand fluctuates?
Approach
- Work from the requirement backwards to the design.
- 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.
Follow-up
- What assumption would you test first?
- How would you know your answer was wrong?
What strategies do you use to manage technical debt in long-term proje…
What strategies do you use to manage technical debt in long-term projects?
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
- What assumption would you test first?
- How would you know your answer was wrong?
Idempotent movement writes from handhelds that retry blindly
Handhelds post movements to the Availability Service at 2,000 per second across sites and retry on any timeout without knowing whether the first attempt committed. Each request carries item_id, node_id, state, a signed delta_qty with its uom_code, reason_code, a caller-supplied idempotency_key and a device occurred_at. Design the write: the transaction boundary across inventory_movement and inventory_position, what a duplicate returns, and what happens when the resulting position would go negative. Do not assume occurred_at precedes recorded_at.
Approach
- One local transaction. INSERT into inventory_movement with ON CONFLICT (idempotency_key) DO NOTHING RETURNING movement_id; if zero rows come back the write already happened, so read the existing row by that key and return its original outcome. The unique index is the idempotency mechanism, which means no cache, no request log and no in-memory set has to be correct for this to hold.
- Apply the delta to inventory_position in the same transaction: UPDATE ... SET qty = qty + ?, version = version + 1, last_movement_id = ? WHERE (item_id, node_id, lot_id, state) = ... AND version = ?, then test the affected-row count and re-read plus retry a bounded number of times on zero. Same transaction is exactly what stops the ledger and its derived aggregate from diverging under a crash.
- Decide the negative case explicitly. Let CHECK (qty >= 0) abort the transaction, return a typed error and raise an exception task. Clamping at zero hides the missing receipt, and the first visible symptom then becomes a picker standing at an empty location for a promise the system already made.
- Handle the in-flight duplicate, not just the settled one: a retry arriving before the first attempt commits blocks on the unique index and resolves to the conflict branch once the first commits, so the second caller's latency is bounded below by the first's. Set the device timeout above that, or the retry storm is self-inflicted.
- Keep occurred_at as reported and recorded_at as server time, store clock_offset_ms beside them, and never derive ordering from occurred_at alone. A device whose clock runs ahead produces occurred_at > recorded_at, which is a row to flag for the fold and the audit, not a request to reject.
Worked solution 20 min
- Write the insert with its conflict clause and the read-back branch, and state precisely what the duplicate response body is.
- Write the position compare-and-set with its version predicate and rowcount test, and define the bounded retry.
- Force the negative case on paper: on_hand of 3, a pick of 5, and say what is written, what is rolled back, and who is told.
- Show the correction path for a wrong movement: a new reversing row with reason_code reversal and reversed_by set, never an UPDATE or DELETE.
Follow-up
- A device buffers 4,000 movements offline and posts them in one burst. What changes: batch size, ordering, and whether the idempotency key is per row or per batch?
- Write the reconciliation query that re-sums inventory_movement per key against inventory_position, and say what it must bound the sum by so a busy row does not report a false variance.
- A supervisor says yesterday's delta was wrong by two cases. What exactly gets written?
Two committed allocations against a position holding one unit
Six oversells in a week, all on the twenty hottest item-node pairs, all inside promotion minutes. In one case inventory_position.qty was 1 and two allocation rows exist with qty 1 and status 'committed', created 4 ms apart; both transactions committed cleanly. The code reads availability, then issues UPDATE inventory_position SET qty = qty - :n, version = version + 1 WHERE item_id = :i AND node_id = :d AND lot_id = :l AND state = 'on_hand' AND version = :v, then inserts the allocation. A 200-thread load test across 50,000 SKUs never reproduces it. Find the defect and prove it.
Approach
- Reconstruct from the data before reading the code. Pull inventory_movement and allocation for that key ordered by identifier with the version values involved. Two commits that both proceeded from version v prove the compare-and-set did not gate anything; a single row correctly stepping v then v+1 with an oversell anyway would instead send you to the read path.
- Name the defect: the affected-row count of the conditional UPDATE is never tested. When version has moved the UPDATE matches nothing and affects zero rows, but control flow continues into the INSERT and the transaction commits, so the WHERE version = :v clause is decoration. A compare-and-set only protects you if the zero-row outcome changes what happens next.
- Explain why the load test is silent. With 200 threads spread over 50,000 SKUs, the chance that two allocators land on one row inside the UPDATE's execution window is negligible, while production traffic concentrates on twenty rows. Pin the same test to a single SKU with a position of 1 and N threads, assert that exactly one allocation survives, and it fails on the first run. That test is the proof, and it belongs in the suite.
- Rule out the decoy rather than ignoring it. If availability is read from a replica, lag peaks exactly when write volume does, so the read is often stale. But a stale read only mis-sizes the attempt: with a working compare-and-set the write still fails and retries, so the replica is a latency and retry-rate problem, not the oversell. Say that explicitly instead of fixing two things and learning nothing.
- Fix and then choose the mechanism deliberately. Test the rowcount; on zero rows re-read the position from the primary and retry with bounded attempts and jittered backoff, and never reuse the version captured before the failed attempt. Compare-and-set is lock-free but burns retries under contention on a single hot row; SELECT ... FOR UPDATE inside a short transaction queues writers predictably and is usually calmer for twenty hot keys; above that, funnel allocations for one item-node key through a single writer and accept the added latency.
- State what the isolation level does and does not do, since identical code is not equally safe everywhere. On PostgreSQL READ COMMITTED, which is the default and what this deployment runs, the second UPDATE blocks on the row lock, re-evaluates its predicate against the newly committed row, matches nothing and affects zero rows; control flow falls into the INSERT and the transaction commits, and that is the oversell. InnoDB's REPEATABLE READ ends the same way for this statement, because an UPDATE takes a current read rather than the snapshot read: it blocks, applies against the latest row, affects zero rows and does not abort. PostgreSQL REPEATABLE READ is the one that does not oversell, and not because the code is right: it raises SQLSTATE 40001 on a row a concurrent transaction updated after the snapshot, which aborts the whole transaction, so the unchecked INSERT can never commit. That is failing closed on an exception no handler anticipated, on one of the three configurations, at the cost of an error the caller has to catch and retry. Two of three commit the oversell, so the rowcount check is not optional, and the invariant belongs in a continuous monitor as well as in a test: assert per key that the sum of allocation.qty in status 'held' or 'committed' does not exceed the position quantity, and let the reconciliation job re-sum movements into positions and raise a variance when they disagree.
Follow-up
- An allocation must span two positions atomically. What changes in your mechanism, and what if the two live in different shards?
- Under the retry design, what stops a hot key from livelocking when fifty allocators all retry together?
- The six oversells are already promised to customers. What is the compensating path, and what does it write to inventory_movement?
Four days sample coding, design, fundamentals and the practical rounds at deliberately shallow depth, which is enough to surface the topics you did not know were in scope. That map, rather than a guess made on day one, decides where the last three days go.
Prepare, practise & reflect
One practical outcome each day. Spend longer where you need it.
0 / 7 done01Coding, one pass at shallow depth
- Solve one problem from each of six families, an array with two pointers, hash counting, binary search, a tree traversal, a graph traversal and one dynamic program, under a hard twenty-minute cap with no extensions, marking each finished, late, or stalled.
- For every stall, write the exact move you could not make rather than the subject, so the note reads could not turn the recurrence into a loop rather than bad at dynamic programming.
- Fix nothing today. The value of the pass is the unfixed record.
Deliverable: Six timed attempts marked finished, late or stalled, each stall carrying a named blocking move.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗02Design, one pass at shallow depth
- Spend twenty minutes each on three different shapes, a read-heavy feed, a write-heavy ingest path, and something needing a transaction across two entities, stopping each at requirements, interface and data model.
- After each, write the first question you could not answer, which is usually a number you could not estimate or a failure mode you had no vocabulary for.
- Mark which of the three you would be most relieved not to be asked, and treat that as data rather than as a preference.
Deliverable: Three shallow designs, each with the first unanswerable question written at the bottom.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗03Fundamentals and the practical rounds
- Answer eight short questions in writing at four minutes each, covering the material that fills the gaps between the big rounds: what happens between a URL and a rendered page, what an index costs on write, when a process is preferable to a thread, and what conditions a deadlock requires.
- Do one thirty-minute practical task of the kind a take-home compresses: read an unfamiliar two-hundred-line file and write what it does, what you would change, and the one thing you remain unsure of.
- Score every answer fluent, correct but slow, or absent, and keep the absent ones visible.
Deliverable: Eight scored short answers and one written reading of unfamiliar code.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗04The rounds that are about you, and the map
- Deliver three behavioural answers aloud against a timer, a conflict, a failure you owned, and a decision made without enough information, marking any that ran past three minutes or contained no number.
- Assemble the map: every marked item from days one to three on a single page, sorted by how likely it is to appear in your loop rather than by how uncomfortable it felt.
- Choose exactly two areas for the remaining three days and write down what you are deliberately abandoning.
Deliverable: A one-page scored map of the whole surface area with two areas chosen and the rest explicitly abandoned.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗05First chosen area, to the depth you skipped
- Work the higher-ranked area in four focused blocks, choosing items one level above where you stalled rather than repeating what already works.
- After each block write the rule you extracted in one sentence with its precondition attached, since a rule carrying no precondition is exactly what fails under a variation.
- Re-attempt the day-one or day-two item that exposed this area and compare against the original timing.
Deliverable: Four worked blocks, a timed re-attempt against the original, and three one-sentence rules with preconditions.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗06Second chosen area, where the gap is coverage rather than speed
- Treat the second area differently from the first. Day five drilled something you could already half-do; this one is usually a topic you had simply never met, so build one worked reference example end to end and keep it, rather than attempting six problems badly.
- Write down the vocabulary you were missing on day two or three, five terms at most, each with the one sentence that makes it usable in an answer rather than the textbook definition.
- Redo the shallow attempt that exposed this area and note whether you now fail later in the problem, because moving the failure point is the realistic gain from a single day and is worth more than a score that did not change.
Deliverable: One worked reference example for the newly covered area, a five-term vocabulary list, and a note on where the failure point moved.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗07Reassemble the loop
- Sit two rounds back to back with no gap, ordering them so the area you chose second comes last, because the map was built from rested, isolated attempts and the loop will reach your weaker area when you are already spent.
- Write where the second round suffered from the first, which is normally the point at which structure collapses into narration.
- Reduce the week to one page holding only the rules you can state without reading them.
Deliverable: Mock notes on cross-round carryover plus a one-page card of rules you can recite from memory.
Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗Expand any day for tasks and deliverables. Your progress is saved on this device.
Every story you tell gets read for blast radius and judgement: what could have broken, who else it touched, what you knew at the moment you decided. Nobody can audit your code in an hour, so they audit your reasoning instead. Pick work where the call was genuinely yours and the consequences were real enough to remember.
Describe a time you had to optimize a piece of software for better per…
Describe a time you had to optimize a piece of software for better performance.
Approach
- Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
- State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
- Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
Follow-up
- What did you decide not to do, and why?
- How did you know your change caused the improvement?
Tell me about a time you had to explain a technical challenge to a non…
Tell me about a time you had to explain a technical challenge to a non-technical stakeholder.
Approach
- Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
- Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.
- State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
Follow-up
- What did you decide not to do, and why?
- How did you know your change caused the improvement?
How do you contribute to a culture of continuous improvement and knowl…
How do you contribute to a culture of continuous improvement and knowledge sharing?
Approach
- State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
- Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.
- Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
Follow-up
- How did you know your change caused the improvement?
- What did you decide not to do, and why?
How do you handle disagreements within your development team regarding…
How do you handle disagreements within your development team regarding architectural choices?
Approach
- State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
- Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
- Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.
Follow-up
- How did you know your change caused the improvement?
- What would you do differently if you ran that again?
- 01
Describe a time you had to optimize a piece of software for better performance.
- 02
Tell me about a time you had to explain a technical challenge to a non-technical stakeholder.
- 03
How do you contribute to a culture of continuous improvement and knowledge sharing?
- 04
How do you handle disagreements within your development team regarding architectural choices?
Is this an official Transport for NSW interview guide?
No. It is PracHub's own research and practice material for the Software Engineer role at Transport for NSW. Rounds and questions reflect what candidates have reported, not a process Transport for NSW has published, and they change over time. Confirm the current format and scope with your recruiter.
PracHub interview research ↗How much preparation time should I dedicate to the technical rounds?
Plan for at least 2–4 weeks of focused practice, specifically targeting the languages and architectural patterns most relevant to your specific team's focus.
PracHub interview research ↗What differentiates successful candidates from others?
Successful candidates demonstrate a clear ability to balance technical excellence with the practical constraints of a large public-sector organization.
PracHub interview research ↗Is the work environment hybrid?
Transport for NSW generally supports flexible working arrangements, though specific expectations for your team will be clarified during the interview process.
PracHub interview research ↗What is the typical timeline from the first interview to an offer?
The process can take several weeks due to the necessary rigor and coordination, so remain patient and maintain consistent communication with your recruiter.
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.
Tesla Software Engineer Interview Guide
Timed practice for Tesla software engineer candidates who lose time to the clock: short problems taken end to end, then reviewed against a written rubric rather than a passing test run.
Waymo Software Engineer Interview Guide
Caching exercises for Waymo software engineer candidates: deciding what staleness a feature tolerates, choosing between expiry and explicit invalidation, and handling the stampede when a hot key expires.
Flexport Software Engineer Interview Guide
Take-home style practice for software engineers preparing for Flexport: build a small service against a fixed time budget, then write down what you left out and why a reviewer should accept that.
Zenix Aerospace Software Engineer Interview Guide
Operational practice for Zenix Aerospace software engineer candidates: picking the signal that catches a bad release early, and telling a latency regression apart from a shift in traffic mix.