The problem itself wasn't too wild but the testing setup was annoying.
Start by clarifying requirements and defining a clear validation schema for KYC data, including expected formats and edge cases. Then design a modular validation pipeline that normalizes inputs, applies format-specific checks, and aggregates errors. Finally, implement comprehensive test cases covering valid, invalid, and boundary inputs, and verify them through manual I/O.
Pro tip: Demonstrate a test-driven approach by writing test cases first, and emphasize the importance of clear error messages and logging for debugging and compliance. Also, mention how you would handle internationalization and data privacy concerns.
Ask clarifying questions about the types of KYC data (e.g., names, addresses, IDs, dates), expected formats, and regulatory requirements. Define what constitutes valid and invalid data, and identify edge cases like missing fields, incorrect formats, and international variations.
Outline a modular system with separate validators for each data type, a normalization layer to handle different input formats, and an error aggregation mechanism. Consider using a schema validation library or custom rules, and discuss trade-offs between strict and lenient validation.
Write code for each validator, ensuring they handle edge cases such as whitespace, case sensitivity, date formats, and international characters. Use regular expressions, parsing libraries, and checksum algorithms where appropriate, and ensure errors are collected with clear messages.
Develop a comprehensive set of test cases covering valid inputs, invalid inputs, and boundary conditions. Manually verify the output by running the tests and inspecting the results, ensuring that all edge cases are addressed and error messages are accurate.
Refactor code for readability and maintainability, and consider performance implications. Discuss how the solution could be extended for new data types or formats, and how it integrates with existing systems.
AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.