I knew the surface-level answer but fumbled a bit when they pushed on idempotency.
Start by defining each method's core semantics—GET retrieves data, POST submits data for processing, and PUT replaces a resource at a known URI. Then explain safety and idempotency, and tie them to practical use cases like caching, retries, and RESTful API design.
Pro tip: Emphasize that idempotency is about the effect of multiple identical requests, not the response status code, and mention that POST is neither safe nor idempotent, which is why browsers warn about resubmission.
Briefly describe GET, POST, and PUT: GET retrieves a representation, POST submits data to be processed, and PUT creates or replaces a resource at a specific URI.
Define safety (no side effects on server state) and idempotency (multiple identical requests have the same effect as one). Note that GET is safe and idempotent, PUT is idempotent but not safe, and POST is neither.
Discuss how these properties affect caching (GET responses can be cached), retry logic (idempotent methods can be safely retried), and browser behavior (POST form resubmission warnings).
Give examples: use GET for fetching resources, POST for creating resources or triggering actions, and PUT for full updates or replacements. Mention that PATCH is for partial updates.
Conclude that choosing the right method depends on the operation's semantics, and that following these conventions leads to predictable, cacheable, and reliable APIs.
AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.
Start by categorizing CSS approaches along a spectrum from global to scoped, then explain the trade-offs of each in terms of maintainability, performance, and team scalability. Use concrete examples from your experience to show when you'd choose each, emphasizing that the right choice depends on project size, team structure, and tooling.
Pro tip: Mention that CSS-in-JS and utility-first frameworks like Tailwind are also part of the modern toolkit, and that the best approach often involves a hybrid—e.g., CSS Modules for components and utility classes for layout—to balance encapsulation and reuse.
Explain that CSS approaches range from global (inline, classes) to locally scoped (BEM, CSS Modules), and that the core trade-off is between simplicity and maintainability at scale.
Describe when inline styles are appropriate: dynamic, one-off styling based on runtime values (e.g., progress bar width), but note they lack pseudo-classes, media queries, and cause duplication.
Discuss how plain classes work for small projects, and how BEM adds a naming convention to avoid conflicts and improve readability in larger codebases without build tooling.
Explain that CSS Modules automatically scope class names to components, preventing leaks and enabling composition, making them ideal for component-based frameworks like React.
Summarize when to use each: inline for dynamic one-offs, BEM for static sites or teams without build steps, CSS Modules for component libraries and large apps, and mention CSS-in-JS/utility-first as alternatives.
AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.
Start by defining web accessibility as a core part of quality engineering, not an afterthought. Then, outline the essential practices you prioritize (e.g., semantic HTML, ARIA, keyboard navigation) and describe a layered testing strategy that combines automated tools, manual checks, and assistive technology testing. Emphasize how you integrate accessibility into the development lifecycle to catch issues early.
Pro tip: Mention that you treat accessibility as a shared responsibility and advocate for including people with disabilities in user testing. Also, highlight that automated tools catch only ~30% of issues, so manual testing with screen readers and keyboard is crucial.
List the core accessibility practices you consider non-negotiable, such as semantic HTML, proper ARIA usage, keyboard navigability, sufficient color contrast, and responsive design.
Explain how you incorporate accessibility from the start: using linters, design reviews, and component libraries that are accessible by default.
Describe using automated tools like axe, Lighthouse, or WAVE in CI/CD pipelines to catch common issues early.
Detail manual testing methods: keyboard-only navigation, screen reader testing (NVDA, JAWS, VoiceOver), and checking focus management and ARIA live regions.
Emphasize testing with real users with disabilities and iterating based on feedback to ensure real-world usability.
AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.