1. Recruiter call - good impression 2. Test task When I read a comment above where someone mentioned Cabify imagining themselves at FAANG or NASA, I thought that maybe the person had done a poor job. You can also consider my experience in a similar light. However, the reality is that the test task they provided is quite extensive. Upon analyzing the given code, it involves tasks like changing data structures, implementing algorithms, improving the code's cleanliness, overall design enhancement, code documentation, and ensuring comprehensive coverage with unit and integration tests. I dedicated about 3 days of my free time to this task. Furthermore, the task's requirements aren't precisely defined; they essentially boil down to "fix everything you can." In summary, I received a rejection with the following feedback: "You've done an excellent job refining the code, making it more idiomatic, and leveraging the Spring framework's features. Nevertheless, we were expecting the freedom to replace infrastructure components as needed." It's quite surprising. The actions I described are what any developer would naturally prioritize given the provided requirements, and these actions are time-consuming. Completely overhauling the architecture, which they actually discourage in their description, would take even more time—possibly a few more days. It's puzzling to think who would invest such a substantial amount of free time into a test task, especially when I hadn't even initiated the application process myself; I was initially contacted by a recruiter. So, I do agree that their expectations appear to be on par with FAANG or NASA standards. Ironically, they lack the reputation and their salary ranges are significantly lower—around 5 times less, in fact.
