← Salesforce Interview Insights

Salesforce·Software Engineer·Online Assessment (OA)·Senior

Senior
Apr 2026

Summary

Salesforce OA for a software engineer role, code-review format where you play the reviewer on a small Python codebase doing SQL and I/O stuff. Not your typical LeetCode grind, which I appreciated, but it's easy to miss categories if you're not being systematic about it.

Questions Asked (1)

Q1

You're given a small Python codebase that handles SQL inserts, queries, and other I/O operations. Act as a code reviewer and leave at least 10 distinct review comments spanning multiple concern categories: security, data layer design, concurrency, error handling, and general code quality. Each comment needs to explain the problem and suggest a concrete fix.

Technical Trade-offsSystem DesignRoot Cause Analysis
Author's notes

This is a deceptively broad prompt.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by clarifying the scope and assumptions about the codebase, then systematically review each concern category (security, data layer, concurrency, error handling, code quality) and provide at least two concrete comments per category. For each comment, explicitly state the problem, its impact, and a specific fix with code examples where helpful.

Pro tip: Prioritize comments by risk (e.g., SQL injection first) and tie each to a real-world consequence like data breach or deadlock, showing you think like a production engineer. Also, mention how you'd verify fixes with tests or static analysis.

1. Clarify scope and assumptions

Ask clarifying questions about the codebase's purpose, scale, and constraints (e.g., expected concurrency, database type) to tailor your review. State any assumptions you make.

2. Systematically review by category

Go through each concern category one by one: security, data layer design, concurrency, error handling, and general code quality. For each, identify at least two distinct issues.

3. Articulate problem, impact, and fix

For each issue, clearly explain what the problem is, why it matters (impact), and propose a concrete fix with code snippets or references to best practices.

4. Prioritize and summarize

Rank the issues by severity (e.g., critical, high, medium) and summarize the top risks. This shows you can triage effectively.

5. Suggest verification and prevention

Recommend how to verify fixes (e.g., unit tests, integration tests) and prevent future issues (e.g., linters, code review checklists).

Key Points to Mention

  • SQL injection vulnerabilities from string concatenation and the need for parameterized queries or ORMs.
  • Connection and transaction management: use context managers, connection pooling, and proper commit/rollback.
  • Concurrency issues: race conditions, deadlocks, and the importance of isolation levels and locking strategies.
  • Error handling: avoid bare excepts, log errors with context, and implement retries with exponential backoff for transient failures.
  • Code quality: follow PEP 8, use meaningful names, add docstrings, and modularize code for testability.
  • Data layer design: separate concerns (e.g., repository pattern), use migrations, and validate input at boundaries.

AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.