Develop test plan and TDD for word search

Quick Overview

This question evaluates a candidate's competency in designing comprehensive test plans and test-driven development workflows for grid-based word search algorithms, covering edge-case identification, input normalization, path validity, and performance/stress considerations within software testing and algorithmic reasoning.

Develop test plan and TDD for word search

Company: Uber

Role: Software Engineer

Category: Software Engineering Fundamentals

Difficulty: medium

Interview Round: Technical Screen

Design a comprehensive test plan and test-driven development workflow for the two word-search functions above. Enumerate concrete test cases: empty grid; empty word; single-letter grid/word matches and mismatches; straight-line matches in all eight directions; attempts requiring direction changes (should fail under fixed-direction); diagonal-only matches; boundary-crossing attempts; words with repeated letters that tempt revisits; multiple valid starting positions; grids with no occurrence; large inputs for performance and stack-depth concerns; and invalid/normalization inputs if applicable. Describe how you would structure unit, property-based, and stress tests, and define pass/fail criteria.

Quick Answer: This question evaluates a candidate's competency in designing comprehensive test plans and test-driven development workflows for grid-based word search algorithms, covering edge-case identification, input normalization, path validity, and performance/stress considerations within software testing and algorithmic reasoning.

|Home/Software Engineering Fundamentals/Uber
Uber logo
Uber
Sep 6, 2025, 12:00 AM
mediumSoftware EngineerTechnical ScreenSoftware Engineering Fundamentals
5
0

Design a Comprehensive Test Plan and TDD Workflow for Word-Search Functions

Context and Assumptions

We are testing two grid-based word search functions that operate on a 2D character grid. To make the task self-contained, assume the following interfaces and semantics:

  • Function A: existsFixedDirection(grid, word) -> bool
    • Returns true if the word appears contiguously in a straight line along any of the 8 compass directions (N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, NW) without wrapping and without reusing cells beyond the contiguous straight-line traversal.
  • Function B: existsPathAnyDirection(grid, word) -> bool (or -> path if your design returns coordinates)
    • Returns true if there exists a path spelling the word by moving step-by-step to any of the 8 neighboring cells per letter. Direction can change between steps. A cell cannot be reused within the same word instance (no revisits in one path). No wrapping beyond edges.
  • Inputs:
    • grid: non-jagged 2D array/list of single-character strings.
    • word: string (possibly empty or with repeated letters); normalization rules to be specified.

Task

Design a thorough test plan and a test-driven development workflow for both functions. Enumerate concrete test cases covering:

  • Empty grid
  • Empty word
  • Single-letter grid/word matches and mismatches
  • Straight-line matches in all eight directions
  • Attempts requiring direction changes (should fail under fixed-direction)
  • Diagonal-only matches
  • Boundary-crossing attempts
  • Words with repeated letters that tempt revisits
  • Multiple valid starting positions
  • Grids with no occurrence
  • Large inputs for performance and stack-depth concerns
  • Invalid/normalization inputs (if applicable)

Describe how you would structure unit, property-based, and stress tests, and define pass/fail criteria.

Loading comments...