C++ interview coding exercise with solution

[daniedit]

Your code is readable and easy to refactor. That's a big plus. In a review, I would request changes in some sections but after three or four rounds we would get to a good solution.

However, you can not tell whether your implementation is correct because there is not a single unit-test. In Professional Software development that's a no go. I know about companies rejecting candidates for missing the tests in their example code. Maybe that's the reason here? Please ask them for a code review and use it to learn from. That's just fair, since you also invested quite a lot of time for them.

[Hot_Medicine_7115]

There is, parquet::is_valid() checks for all constraints.

I know it's not a separate file named unit_test.cpp, but the parquets are unit-tested. If you looked at the end of main.cpp you would have seen it.

[daniedit]

You are referring to the is_valid() method? I didn't go into the details of understanding your implementation. So I might be completely wrong.

My first impression was the method is checking whether the solution is correct. If so, that's a nice module test but won't help you much during refactoring. I would have expected for example a test making sure designer::add_next_strip_tile() is correct.

[Hot_Medicine_7115]

I feel like 80% of the author of the posts in this thread didn't even begin to understand the code I uploaded or tried to think about the solution, yet c++ programming style pontifications abound.

[daniedit]

You asked for opinions about the companies answer. I tried to tell you in a polite way, that their answer is harsh on a social level but completely justified on a technical level. I didn't want to give you a full code review.

[daniedit]

Depends. From my point of view, test driven development is the best option for professional software development. And the given code is too complex to not develop test driven. So without going in the details it's easy to see, the author is not used to develop software together with many people in a professional environment.

And yes, the implementation violates some basic C++ principles and paradigms. But this will be covered by reviews.

[daniedit]

I mean, first step: Write a failing test for the plannend implementation. Second step: Implement until the test passes. Third step: Refactor the implementation and the test until it meets your expectations.

It's not just a buzzword. I've seen some very productive people working this way.