undefined | Better HN

0 pointsilc3y ago0 comments

I've handed fully containerized code, with 100% code coverage. (Separate entry point from default to run the tests.) Then been told no.

I suspect the people weren't used to having someone hand in a basically 100% guaranteed to work program ;).

(I do know 100% code coverage doesn't mean working. But the docker container helps a good bit in making sure the code will run in the environment I wrote it for.)

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

arp2423y ago· 1 in thread

Every time I've reviewed these sort of code tests I've never even run the code. I just looked if the approach looked alright, and to be honest I don't even care if it gives a slightly wrong answer because everyone can make an error; this is why we got code reviews and such. It's like physics and math classes at school; at least at my school an error in arithmetic was only a small minus if your general approach was okay (one reason I'm not in favour of computerized testing/ratings, because they can only look at the answer).

I don't know what your specific code test was about so I can't really judge, but generally I've considered overcomplicated solutions to be a minus. "I asked you to write a simple CLI and I get some container environment" is not something I would consider positive anyway.

ilcOP3y ago

You think simple CLI.

I think: I'm writing this in Python, most Python setups are a giant mess. By putting it in a container, I can guarantee it'll run right on their system. This is LESS complex.

If my employer considers "docker run" when given full instructions complex. I guess I'm not a fit.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse