Dear programmers, never accept employers test without employer's responsibility.
Employers always behave insolently, defiantly and always try to evade responsibility. If employers send test for you they must deposit money to pay you efforts and time. You can only accept tests without payment for your efforts if you have completely lost respect for yourself. I write about this million times Декілька моїх останніх тестових проєктів.
Here is another example of the brazen, defiant behavior of some vile, insignificant software company 'Skedda' that stole three days of my life from me.
This stuppid fucking software company sent me test Skedda.pdf, first part is full idiotic about Ember.js what not updated more than 2 years https://www.npmjs.com/package/ember and really dead now. Second part of this fucking company was a TDD ASP.NET test. I made this test curefully and set it to this fucking company - https://github.com/Alex1737/TDD-for-ASP.NET.Core.
After that something robot estimate my solution. This is fucking rebot report:
Candidate attempted the FY task and identified that it's valuable to have an IRandomNumberGenerator service which can be injected into FisherYatesService, thereby allowing mocking of the random-number sequence from the unit tests. This was a positive.
There were a number of additional notes re: this submission:
* A few of the unit tests are (at least theoretically) flaky: "Next_ReturnsDifferentValuesOnSubsequentCalls", "Shuffle_ProducesUniformDistribution". These tests used thresholds/constants that were not justified in a statistical sense, and if the tests were run frequently as part of a CI regression suite, they would inevitably fail with a false positive "now and then". These kinds of tests are not best practice for unit tests (ok as acceptance tests or ad-hoc tests, but not unit tests).
* The test "Shuffle_ProducesDifferentOrderWithDifferentRandomSeeds" nicely set up the random-number-generator to return specific sequences of values. Why wasn't the exact result asserted (as prescribed by the Fisher-Yates algorithm definition)? Doing so would have been a very tight test that strongly asserts that the implementation actually is the Fisher-Yates algorithm (as opposed to some other shuffling algorithm).
* The candidate didn't follow the instructions to not implement the algorithm (the candidate did), and to not do any kind of end-to-end testing (which the candidate did in GET_ReturnsShuffledResult).
* Project contained code that was not really asked for (e.g. testing ServiceInjection_WorksCorrectly, and ValidRequest class even though the instructions said to not worry about validation).
How I can estimate this robot feedback:
This written by fucking idiot or stupid bot, each point is trash, (1) "not justified in a statistical sense" - who said that statistical test is mandatory? Its a very special requirements, where this requirements described in task I need to do? (2) "Why wasn't the exact result asserted (as prescribed by the Fisher-Yates algorithm definition)?" -complete contradiction with the point "The candidate didn't follow the instructions to not implement the algorithm (the candidate did)," - is trash, because fucking bot not understand goal of my parameters - avoid realization and generate fake interface only or implement realization. (3) I add parameter - with realization or without, therefore point " The candidate didn't follow the instructions to not implement the algorithm (the candidate did)," (4) "Project contained code that was not really asked" - This fucking idiot or bot try to lecture me - what test is mandatory and what test for ASP.NET not mandatory? We speaking about ASP.NET and in this case Endpoint test and Integration test and DI container test is mandatory. If we can not speak about ASP.NET (for example we make desktop apps)- this 3 tests - endpoint, Di container and integration - is not mandatory, yes. But fucking bot forget in last point what technology we used.
It looks like a dumb insignificant bot or some schoolboy tries to analyze the code, does not understand anything in it and starts to invent reasons for refusal. This means that the vacancy was initially fake. They do not need a programmer at all. Absolutely. These scoundrels just drink the blood of programmers for free, forcing programmers to work for free. For this they create fictitious vacancies. This is the last time I did any test assignment for free. Scoundrels and scumbags should be responsible. For example, pay at least $ 100 dollars for each test given to a programmer.
What lessons can we learn from this?
- Skedda company don't need programmer at all. Even most experienced programmers full pass all test, this company has no interest even to read result. Only bot read sended result and answered automatically for any participants. the company does not create a vacancy for a programmer, it only creates spam on the Internet about a vacancy that supposedly exists. Or it is engaged in fraud in order to employ some idiot, possibly a relative of the manager.
- The company hasn't updated tests for over two years, sends out tests for a completely dead software environment. This confirms that the company is technically backward, dead, does not need programmers, just some once configured bot creates SPAM about the alleged need for a programmer
- The company cannot even evaluate the quality of the work performed, but entrusts the evaluation to some bot, which generates several points, each of which contradicts the previous one. Which confirms that the vacancy is fictitious, the company does not need a programmer, the company is technically dead, sends out tests for more than two years for a completely dead programming environment. The company is not even able to make individual tests, is not able to accept and evaluate the results.
How to protect himself from dummy fictive company like Skedda?
There are only one protection - fucking mindless company like Skedda must paid money for any test they send to developer. This is mandatory step to clear internet from fake vacancies, protect programmers and cleanse the internet of irresponsibility and spam.
Job context:
)
|
|