I responded back, that's billable time there. That would require me to take PTO at my current job, and do your work unpaid. And that, I will not do.
I kindly told them where they could put their job. (They still advertise jobs on the monthly, but they seem legit aside that onerous 1.5 days of work. And no, I won't mention whom. Hopefully they'll rethink their policies, but alas..)
Yeah, I did ask around in their area with fellow engineer-y types. They are a legit company, and the webapp wasn't a way to get free work. Think of it as a standards approach, rather than bulletpoint resumes that verge on untruth.
To be honest, I'd prefer they have a sit-down with me. They can do their fizzbuzz or linked list test, but I want to get a feel of the problems they're fighting with. I've always liked deep technical discussions, and how I would do it vs how they would/did it. It's a bit more subjective, but I would think that discussing technical aspects and asking how I (interviewee) would do it.
I offered an IoT project Ive developed myself in lieu of it, so they could comment on my code quality. They declined that, and wanted their webapp.
They're missing out :) Although I've an interview with GitLab coming up. Everything I've seen how they operate and treat their people is just awesome. Regardless if I'm a good fit for the position they're offering, I still think highly of them. :)
* Failing outright to do anything even close to the requested task
* Not even basic error handling
* No tests
* Using generated code where it's not appropriate, or not bothering to implement e.g. catch blocks they've generated
The instructions explicitly tell candidates what we're looking for, so it's not worth chatting to someone without doing this filter.
Ghosted.
I'm applying simultaneously to tens of companies, if you insist I can send you a link to my repositories with all take home assignments I've done so far.