Implement memoize with cache invalidation
Build memoize with cache invalidation. The interviewer expects a small, reusable utility with clear behavior under repeated calls and invalid inputs.
Answer Strategy
For memoize with cache invalidation, start by stating the public contract before writing code: argument shape, return shape, mutation rules, error behavior, and whether work is synchronous, timed, cached, or cancellable.
A senior solution uses boring names for hidden state. If the function stores a timer, cache entry, listener, or in-flight promise, say who owns that state and how it is cleaned up.
After the baseline passes, harden the edge cases: empty input, repeated calls, invalid values, thrown callbacks, stable ordering, and memory lifetime. The reference below is written to be narrated line by line.
Reference Implementation: Memoize With TTL
This pattern covers the common interview utility shape: a small public API, private closure state, and tests for repeated calls.
type CacheEntry<T> = {
value: T;
expiresAt: number;
};
function memoizeWithTtl<TArgs extends unknown[], TResult>(
fn: (...args: TArgs) => TResult,
ttlMs: number,
keyOf: (...args: TArgs) => string = (...args) => JSON.stringify(args)
) {
const cache = new Map<string, CacheEntry<TResult>>();
return (...args: TArgs): TResult => {
const key = keyOf(...args);
const cached = cache.get(key);
const now = Date.now();
if (cached && cached.expiresAt > now) return cached.value;
const value = fn(...args);
cache.set(key, { value, expiresAt: now + ttlMs });
return value;
};
}Runnable Playground
Edit the implementation and run the tests directly in the browser. For system design questions, the playground focuses on the core state/data logic that the UI would call.
type CacheEntry<T> = {
value: T;
expiresAt: number;
};
function memoizeWithTtl<TArgs extends unknown[], TResult>(
fn: (...args: TArgs) => TResult,
ttlMs: number,
keyOf: (...args: TArgs) => string = (...args) => JSON.stringify(args)
) {
const cache = new Map<string, CacheEntry<TResult>>();
return (...args: TArgs): TResult => {
const key = keyOf(...args);
const cached = cache.get(key);
const now = Date.now();
if (cached && cached.expiresAt > now) return cached.value;
const value = fn(...args);
cache.set(key, { value, expiresAt: now + ttlMs });
return value;
};
}Testing Strategy
Convert the answer into observable behavior. In a mid-senior interview, say which behaviors are covered by unit tests, interaction tests, accessibility checks, and one browser smoke path.
test('utility caches repeated calls by contract key', () => {
let calls = 0;
const add = memoizeWithTtl((a: number, b: number) => {
calls += 1;
return a + b;
}, 1000);
expect(add(1, 2)).toBe(3);
expect(add(1, 2)).toBe(3);
expect(calls).toBe(1);
});Interviewer Signal
Tests whether you can turn a familiar utility into a precise contract instead of coding only the happy path.
Constraints
- Define the function signature before coding.
- Do not rely on global mutable state unless it is part of the returned closure.
- Explain time and space cost for the common path.
Model Answer Shape
- Write the smallest public contract first.
- Cover empty input, repeated calls, thrown errors, and cleanup behavior.
- Keep implementation readable enough to narrate under interview pressure.
Tradeoffs
- A compact implementation is attractive, but explicit state names are easier to debug live.
- Supporting every possible input can distract from the core contract; state the scope before coding.
Edge Cases
- No arguments or undefined callbacks.
- Synchronous throw inside the wrapped function.
- Repeated calls before the previous result settles.
Testing And Proof
- Happy path with representative inputs.
- Boundary input and repeated invocation.
- Cleanup or cancellation if timers or promises are involved.
Follow-Ups
- How would you expose cancellation?
- How would the API change for React usage?