The interview process began with an initial phone screen with the recruiter, focusing on background and experience.

This was followed by a one-hour, one-on-one interview with a senior engineer. The session was part meet-and-greet, where past projects were discussed, and part live coding challenge.

The live coding session included several basic, granular JavaScript and React questions. Examples included:

• "Here's a function that needs its 'this' variable re-scoped, how do I do that and why?"
• "Here's an old-school React pattern; how would I implement this with hooks?"

Additionally, there was a LeetCode/HackerRank-style algorithm code challenge. The prompt was straightforward, but the thought process was tedious and conceptual, as is typical with such challenges.

Unfortunately, performance anxiety prevented me from advancing past this stage.

I was disappointed to see Chewy utilize this interview format. It's not an effective way to showcase a developer's skillset or the value they could bring to a team. I believe I could have performed better if I had the opportunity to answer questions beforehand and then discuss them with the interviewer. This approach would better simulate a typical development and code review cycle familiar to professional software developers.

However, this is a common practice in the industry, so it's not a Chewy-specific issue.

Here is a class-based React component with two errors sprinkled in. What are the errors and why?