[stephenr]

Without knowing much detail all I can guess is that the 'test' was not about fixing the bug, but about testing your methodology.

This sounds like when high school students get marked down/fail for "not showing their working" in maths classes.

It doesn't matter that they can "do it in their head" the teacher is testing to see if they actually understand how to solve the problem, not if they can get the right answer.

[Grishnakh]

Yeah, I've never liked tests like that; they're insulting to intelligent people. It's like having a driving test at the DMV where they ask you to list all the steps in driving to a store nearby, and then they fail you because you missed a bunch of steps such as "open the car door", "close the car door", "put feet on pedals", "check adjustment of rearview mirrors", etc. It reminds me of an old 80's Twilight Zone episode where some teenagers find a leprechaun and one wishes that his parents would do whatever he wanted, and then his parents can't do the simplest things because he has to tell them every single little step to take, such as having to take the frozen pizza out of the box before putting it in the oven.

If your test requires the test-taker to show every minute, trivial step, then your test is a failure.

[stephenr]

My point was that maybe their test wasn't what it appears to be. The bug could have been anything - the test may have been to see if applicants are comfortable using a debugger.

[Grishnakh]

Yes, I'm sure it was exactly that. My point is that it's a failure, because it's an insult to the test-taker's intelligence. "Here's a trivial problem to solve, now I want to see you solve it in the most inefficient manner possible."