Skip to content

Clarify coding-test expectations and align the API contract#7

Open
andywhittle wants to merge 3 commits into
masterfrom
clarify_expectations_ai_usage
Open

Clarify coding-test expectations and align the API contract#7
andywhittle wants to merge 3 commits into
masterfrom
clarify_expectations_ai_usage

Conversation

@andywhittle

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Why

To make the async coding test self-contained and unambiguous for candidates by clarifying AI usage, submission expectations, validation and error handling, and aligning the API docs with the brief.

What changed

README

  • Define allocation semantics (fixed total; remaining is derived; GET returns the original allocation).
  • Add evaluation criteria, an explicit concurrency requirement, and validation/error cases.
  • State the JSON:API media type and submission guidance.
  • Add an AI-usage policy (allowed, but declare co-authorship).

Swagger

  • Fix server URL, document non-2xx responses, and use the JSON:API media type.

andywhittle and others added 3 commits June 15, 2026 14:53
Rewrite the README to remove ambiguity for candidates completing the
test asynchronously: define allocation semantics, make the concurrency
requirement and evaluation criteria explicit, enumerate validation and
error cases, and add submission guidance. Permit AI tool usage while
asking candidates to declare any co-authorship.

Fix the Swagger reference: correct the server URL and document the
non-2xx responses for each route.

Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
Use the application/vnd.api+json media type for both request bodies, and
declare allocation and quantity as integers with minimum constraints
(allocation >= 0, quantity >= 1) so the spec matches the validation rules
described in the README.

Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
Fold the "what we're not expecting" notes and an explicit horizontal-
scalability expectation into the Problem definition, and drop the separate
"What we're evaluating" and "Concurrency requirement" sections so the brief
steers candidates less. Keep "tested code" as a subtle cue in the intro and
reframe the SQL dump as an example only.

Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant