面试题库

30 天从前端工程师到 Agent 工程师

D1 LLM API 基础：messages/roles、token、流式、temperature；Agent 到底是什么

• 用户切到后台或者直接关掉网页，回来后怎么恢复那条还在生成的回复？The user backgrounds the app or closes the tab. How do you restore a reply that was still being generated?

  国内高频海外高频深入#streaming#reliability#architecture

  分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答

  1. 先识别这题和「网络断了」不是同一个问题：客户端已经不存在了，任何写在前端的重试逻辑都不会执行。
  2. 由此推出唯一出路：生成过程必须能脱离这个客户端独立存活，也就是把流本身放到服务端持久化。
  3. 落到具体架构：发起请求时给这轮生成分配一个流 id，服务端一边把 token 推给当前连接，一边把同样的内容写进 Redis 之类的存储；会话记录里保存这个 activeStreamId。
  4. 恢复路径是另开一个 GET 端点：客户端带着会话 id 请求，服务端按 activeStreamId 找到那条流并接着推；找不到活跃流就返回 204，让前端知道没有需要恢复的东西。
  5. 说清代价，别只说方案：多了一份存储、一套过期清理、以及「同一条流可能被多个连接消费」的并发问题。
  6. 延伸：这套结构和普通聊天产品的「消息已持久化，重进会话直接读库」不同——区别在于回复还在生成中，需要的是可续的流而不是一条静态记录。

  How to reason about it · think before answering

  1. First separate this from a dropped connection: the client is gone, so no client-side retry will ever run.
  2. That leaves one option — the generation must outlive the client, which means persisting the stream server-side.
  3. Concretely: assign a stream id per generation; the server pushes tokens to the live connection while also writing them to storage such as Redis, and the chat record stores that activeStreamId.
  4. Recovery is a separate GET endpoint: the client asks with the chat id, the server locates the stream by activeStreamId and resumes; with no active stream it returns 204.
  5. Name the costs, not just the design: extra storage, expiry/cleanup, and concurrency when several connections consume the same stream.
  6. Extension: this differs from ordinary message persistence because the reply is still being produced — you need a resumable stream, not a static row.

  答题要点

  • 客户端已经不在了，前端重试无从谈起，必须让生成过程在服务端独立存活
  • 发起生成时分配流 id，服务端边推送边把内容写进 Redis，会话里记录 activeStreamId
  • 恢复走单独的 GET 端点：按会话 id 找到活跃流接着推，没有活跃流就返回 204
  • 代价：额外存储、过期清理，以及同一条流被多个连接消费的并发处理
  • 与「消息持久化后重新读库」的区别在于回复仍在生成中，需要的是可续的流

  Key points

  • The client is gone, so recovery must live server-side: the generation has to outlive the connection
  • Assign a stream id at start; the server writes tokens to Redis while streaming, and the chat stores activeStreamId
  • Resume through a dedicated GET endpoint that replays the active stream, returning 204 when there is none
  • Costs: extra storage, expiry and cleanup, and concurrent consumers of one stream
  • It differs from plain message persistence because the reply is still in flight, so you need a resumable stream
• 用户主动点「停止生成」和网络意外断开，在服务端看起来都是连接没了，怎么区分处理？A user pressing stop and a dropped connection both look like a closed connection server-side. How do you tell them apart?

  国内高频海外高频深入#streaming#reliability#ux

  分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答

  1. 先点破为什么要区分：主动停止是「用户不想要了」，应当立即释放算力并结束这轮；意外断开是「用户还想要」，理应保留结果供恢复。处理反了，用户要么白花钱，要么回来发现内容没了。
  2. 所以不能只靠 TCP 连接状态判断——它对两种情况的表现是一样的。必须有一个显式信号。
  3. 做法是给「停止」单独一个接口：前端点停止时先调这个接口，带上 run id，服务端据此把该轮标记为「用户取消」，再中止上游模型调用。
  4. 而单纯的连接关闭一律按「意外断开」处理：继续把已生成内容落盘、保留可恢复的流，等客户端回来续。
  5. 补一个现实约束：停止请求本身也可能因为断网而发不出去。所以服务端还需要兜底——比如流没有任何消费者超过一定时间就自行结束，避免算力空转。
  6. 延伸到计费：两种情况都要为已经产生的 token 计费，因为上游厂商已经收了钱；区别只在于要不要保留结果和是否继续生成。

  How to reason about it · think before answering

  1. Say why it matters: stop means the user no longer wants the output, so free compute and end the run; a drop means they still want it, so preserve the result for resumption.
  2. Connection state alone cannot distinguish them — it looks identical — so you need an explicit signal.
  3. Give stop its own endpoint: the client calls it with the run id before closing, and the server marks the run as user-cancelled and aborts the upstream call.
  4. Treat a bare connection close as an unexpected drop: keep persisting output and hold the stream for resumption.
  5. Add the real-world caveat: the stop request itself may fail to send when the network is down, so the server needs a fallback — end a stream with no consumer after a timeout.
  6. Extend to billing: both cases still owe for tokens already produced, since the upstream provider has charged; they differ only in whether output is retained.

  答题要点

  • 两者语义相反：主动停止要立即释放算力并结束，意外断开要保留结果等待恢复
  • TCP 连接状态无法区分，必须有显式信号：给停止单独一个接口，带 run id 标记为用户取消
  • 只收到连接关闭一律按意外断开处理，继续落盘并保留可恢复的流
  • 兜底：停止请求本身也可能发不出去，服务端需对长时间无消费者的流自行结束
  • 计费上两者都要为已产生的 token 记账，区别只在于是否保留结果、是否继续生成

  Key points

  • The semantics are opposite: stop frees compute immediately, a drop preserves output for resumption
  • Connection state cannot distinguish them, so add an explicit stop endpoint carrying the run id
  • Treat a bare close as an unexpected drop: keep persisting and hold the stream for resume
  • Fallback: the stop call may itself fail to send, so end streams with no consumer after a timeout
  • Both still bill for tokens already produced; they differ only in retention and whether generation continues

D25 前端侧 Agent 体验：流式渲染、工具调用可视化、打断/重试、SSE hooks

• 用户点了「停止生成」，前端调用 AbortController.abort() 之后，后端在做什么？The user hits Stop and the frontend calls AbortController.abort(). What is the backend doing at that moment?

  国内高频海外高频深入#streaming#cancellation#cost

  分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答

  1. 这题是本章题眼，也是一道**陷阱题**：题干里已经把「前端 abort 了」当成既成事实，等你顺着说「那就停了」。答「停了」的直接出局。
  2. 正确答案一句话：**后端什么都不知道，它还在跑。** 还在调模型、还在往库里写消息、还在按 token 计费。`abort` 只是让你这一端不再读了，它顶多让 TCP 连接断开，而后端是否感知得到连接断开、感知到之后做不做事，是另一回事。
  3. 怎么拆：把「谁知道这件事」画出来。用户知道 → 前端知道 → **中间断了** → 后端不知道。断掉的这一环必须用一个显式的请求补上：`POST /runs/:id/cancel`。所以打断是两步，不是一步。
  4. 给一个量化的对照最有说服力：同一段 70 个字的回复，在第 5 个字打断——两步打断的后端停在 5/70，只 abort 的后端照跑到 70/70。差 14 倍的 token，而且那 65 个字还会落进会话历史，下一轮当上下文重新发一遍，付第二遍钱。
  5. 生产视角的补充：cancel 收到之后**不要硬杀**，把 run 迁到 cancelled 状态、让当前这一步跑完再退出——硬杀会留下半写的消息和对不上的序号。而且 cancel 本身必须幂等，因为网络抖动时你会重试它。
  6. 可预期的追问：那能不能靠后端检测连接断开来自动停？可以做，而且应该做（作为兜底），但不能只靠它——反向代理和负载均衡常常会把连接维持一段时间，后端感知到断开可能已经是十几秒之后；而且用户点停止之后如果自动重连，连接根本没断。**兜底归兜底，显式 cancel 才是主路径。**

  How to reason about it · think before answering

  1. This is the core question of the chapter and a deliberate trap: the prompt states the abort as a given and waits for you to say 'so it stopped'. Saying that ends the conversation.
  2. The correct answer in one line: the backend knows nothing and is still running — still calling the model, still writing messages, still billing tokens. abort only stops your end from reading; at most it drops the TCP connection, and whether the backend notices, or acts on noticing, is a separate matter.
  3. Decompose by drawing who knows what: the user knows, the frontend knows, the chain breaks, the backend does not know. That broken link must be closed with an explicit request: POST /runs/:id/cancel. So stopping is two steps, not one.
  4. A quantified contrast lands best: on the same 70-character reply interrupted at character 5, the two-step version stops the backend at 5/70 while abort-only runs to 70/70. That is 14x the tokens, and those 65 characters also land in conversation history and get resent as context next turn, billing you twice.
  5. Production addendum: on cancel, do not hard-kill. Move the run to a cancelled state and let the current step finish, or you leave half-written messages and gaps in the sequence numbers. Also make cancel idempotent, because you will retry it when the network flakes.
  6. Expected follow-up: can the backend just detect the dropped connection and stop by itself? It can and should, as a safety net, but not as the only mechanism. Proxies and load balancers often hold connections open, so detection can lag by tens of seconds, and if the client auto-reconnects the connection never drops at all. The net is a net; the explicit cancel is the main path.

  答题要点

  • 后端完全不知情：还在调模型、还在写库、还在计费。abort 只让前端这一端停止读取。
  • 打断必须两步：abort（界面立刻响应）+ POST /runs/:id/cancel（后端真的停）。
  • 量化差别：同一段 70 字的回复在第 5 个字打断，两步是 5/70，只 abort 是 70/70。
  • 后端收到 cancel 不要硬杀，迁到 cancelled 状态让当前步跑完；cancel 必须幂等。
  • 靠后端检测连接断开只能当兜底：代理会维持连接、自动重连时连接根本没断。

  Key points

  • The backend has no idea: still calling the model, still writing, still billing. abort only stops your side reading.
  • Stopping is two steps: abort for instant UI response, plus POST /runs/:id/cancel to actually halt the run.
  • Quantified: interrupting the same 70-character reply at character 5 gives 5/70 with both steps versus 70/70 with abort alone.
  • On cancel, transition the run to cancelled and let the current step finish rather than hard-killing; make cancel idempotent.
  • Backend disconnect detection is only a safety net — proxies hold connections open and auto-reconnect means no disconnect at all.

D29 弱项补强 + 编码热身：rate limiter、LRU、并发控制、流式 JSON 解析

• 为什么流式场景下不能直接用 JSON.parse？你会怎么做增量解析？Why can't you just call JSON.parse in a streaming response, and how would you parse incrementally?

  国内高频海外高频深入#streaming#json-parsing

  分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答

  1. 这题的区分度几乎全在你开口的第一句话。听到「流式 JSON 解析」就动手写状态机的人，会花二十多分钟写一个大概率有 bug 的东西；先反问一句「是一行一个完整 JSON，还是一个大对象被切成很多片」的人，已经赢了一半。
  2. 先回答为什么不能直接解析：网络分包不认语法边界，一次读取拿到的很可能是半个 JSON。直接扔给解析器只会抛异常，而且这个异常没有任何可恢复的信息。
  3. 然后做那个关键区分。情况 a 是 SSE：每条事件是一行以 data 开头的文本，行内是完整 JSON，LLM 场景 99% 是这一种，解法是行缓冲加逐行解析，二十行代码——把切分出来的最后一段（可能是半行）留在缓冲区里，等下一次读到更多数据再拼。情况 b 是单个大对象跨分片到达，才需要真正的增量解析。
  4. 情况 b 的核心是三个状态变量：括号深度（深度归零说明一个完整对象结束）、是否在字符串内部（字符串里的括号不能计入深度）、前一个字符是不是反斜杠（转义中的引号不切换字符串状态）。三者缺一不可，少一个遇到含括号的文本就算错深度。
  5. 还有一条几乎没人主动说、但一说就加分的坑：分片是按字节切的，一个汉字在 UTF-8 里占三个字节，边界可能落在中间。必须用流式解码器（TextDecoder 的 stream 选项、Python 的增量解码器、Java 的 InputStreamReader），否则会拿到一个永远补不回来的乱码字符。这是「半行缓冲」在字节层的同款问题。
  6. 可以预期的追问：那结尾那个终止标记怎么办？答案是它不是 JSON，必须在解析前先判断并直接返回，拿它去解析必然抛异常——这是这道题里最常见的一行 bug。

  How to reason about it · think before answering

  1. Almost all the signal is in your first sentence. Whoever starts writing a state machine will spend twenty-plus minutes on something probably buggy; whoever first asks 'is it one complete JSON per line, or one big object split across chunks?' has already won half the question.
  2. Answer the why first: network chunking ignores syntax boundaries, so a single read often holds half a JSON document. Handing that to a parser only throws, and the exception carries nothing you can recover from.
  3. Then draw the distinction. Case (a) is SSE: each event is one line prefixed with data, holding one complete JSON object. This covers 99% of LLM work, and the fix is line buffering plus per-line parsing — keep the trailing fragment in the buffer and stitch it onto the next chunk.
  4. Case (b) — one large object arriving in pieces — is the only case needing real incremental parsing, and it rests on three state variables: bracket depth (back to zero means a complete object), whether you are inside a string (brackets in text must not count), and whether the previous character was a backslash (an escaped quote must not toggle string state). Drop any one and text containing brackets breaks the depth count.
  5. One trap almost nobody volunteers: chunks are split on bytes, and a CJK character takes three bytes in UTF-8, so a boundary can land mid-character. Use a streaming decoder — TextDecoder with the stream option, an incremental decoder in Python, InputStreamReader in Java — or you get a replacement character you can never recover. It is the half-line problem one layer down.
  6. Expect the follow-up: what about the terminator line? It is not JSON, so check for it and return before parsing. Feeding it to the parser is the single most common one-line bug in this question.

  答题要点

  • 网络分包不认语法边界，一次读取可能拿到半个 JSON，直接解析必然抛异常且不可恢复
  • 先问清是哪一种：一行一个完整 JSON（SSE，占 LLM 场景的绝大多数）还是一个大对象跨分片到达
  • 前者只需行缓冲加逐行解析：把最后一段可能的半行留在缓冲区，等下一次读到更多数据再拼
  • 后者才需要状态机，核心是括号深度、是否在字符串内部、前一个字符是否为转义反斜杠三个状态
  • 字节层还有一个同款坑：UTF-8 多字节字符可能被分片切开，必须用流式解码器；结尾的终止标记不是 JSON，解析前要先判断

  Key points

  • Network chunking ignores syntax boundaries, so a read can hold half a document; parsing it throws an unrecoverable error
  • Ask which case it is first: one complete JSON per line (SSE, the overwhelming majority of LLM work) or one large object split across chunks
  • The first case only needs line buffering plus per-line parsing, keeping the trailing partial line for the next chunk
  • Only the second case needs a state machine, tracking bracket depth, inside-string, and escaped-previous-character
  • One layer down, a multi-byte UTF-8 character can be split across chunks, so use a streaming decoder; and the terminator line is not JSON, so check for it before parsing

14 天 RAG：从检索到可信回答

D6 生成这一侧：上下文怎么排、引用怎么标、什么时候必须拒答，以及流式回答

• 流式输出的场景下，你怎么保证吐出去的内容不会因为引用校验失败而需要撤回？In a streaming setup, how do you make sure nothing you have already sent needs to be retracted because its citation failed verification?

  国内高频海外高频深入#streaming#citation-verification#api-design

  分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答

  1. 这题在考一个真实的架构矛盾：流式要尽早出字，引用校验要等话说完才能核对。看回答里有没有出现「取舍」两个字，以及有没有把代价说清楚。
  2. 先说清矛盾在哪：一旦一个 token 发到了浏览器就撤不回来，你在末尾才发现第三句引用是编的，那句话已经在用户屏幕上了，只能补一句「刚才那句请忽略」，体验比不流式还糟。
  3. 给方案：按句缓冲。攒够一个完整句子就立刻校验一次，通过了才把这句连同已核实的引用发出去，没通过就整句丢掉。代价是首字延迟从一个 token 变成一句话，通常两三百毫秒，用户几乎察觉不到，而错误引用一旦上屏赔的是信任。
  4. 补两个实现细节，它们能证明你写过：流式模式没法用 JSON 输出（要等右花括号闭合才能解析），所以改成纯文本加行内标记，但校验必须和非流式共用同一套；标记要从正文里剥掉，正文保持干净，编号单独走校验再作为结构化数据发出去。
  5. 再补一条顺序上的讲究：生成前就能判的两条拒答线（分数过低、材料冲突）要在流开始之前发出去，用户不会先看到半句回答再被收回；生成后才能判的那条，在按句缓冲之下表现为一句都没发出来，收尾补一个拒答事件即可。
  6. 可预期的追问：那用户体验上的流式感是不是就没了？没有，句级流式在中文长回答里仍然是明显的渐进呈现；真要更细，可以在句子发出前先流一个「正在核对」的占位态，但不要流未校验的正文。

  How to reason about it · think before answering

  1. This tests a real architectural conflict: streaming wants the first token out early, citation verification cannot run until a statement is complete. Listen for whether the candidate names the trade-off and prices it.
  2. Name the conflict: once a token reaches the browser you cannot take it back. Discovering at the end that the third sentence cited a fabricated block leaves you posting 'please ignore that last sentence', which is worse than not streaming at all.
  3. Give the solution: buffer by sentence. As soon as a complete sentence lands, verify it, and only then emit it together with its verified citations; drop the whole sentence otherwise. The cost is that time-to-first-token becomes time-to-first-sentence, typically a few hundred milliseconds, which users barely notice, whereas a bad citation on screen costs trust.
  4. Add two implementation details that prove you have built it. Streaming cannot use JSON output because JSON is only parseable once closed, so switch to plain text with inline markers, while keeping exactly the same verifier as the non-streaming path. Strip the markers out of the prose and send the numbers as structured data after verification.
  5. Add the ordering point: the two rules decidable before generation, low score and source conflict, should be emitted before the stream starts, so the user never sees half an answer being withdrawn. The rule that needs generation shows up as 'no sentence was ever emitted', so close the stream with a refusal event.
  6. Expected follow-up: does this kill the streaming feel? No. Sentence-level streaming is still visibly progressive on long answers. If you need finer granularity, stream a 'checking sources' placeholder, but never stream unverified prose.

  答题要点

  • 矛盾在于发出去的内容撤不回来，而引用只有一句说完才能核对。
  • 解法是按句缓冲：攒够一句校验一次，通过才发，没通过整句丢掉。
  • 代价是首字延迟从一个 token 变成一句话，这个代价必须付也付得起。
  • 流式用不了 JSON，改纯文本加行内标记，但校验逻辑与非流式共用同一套；标记从正文剥出，编号作为结构化数据单独发。
  • 生成前能判的拒答要在流开始之前发出去，生成后才能判的那条以「一句都没发」的形式收尾补事件。

  Key points

  • The conflict: emitted text cannot be recalled, while a citation can only be checked once its sentence is complete.
  • The fix is sentence-level buffering: verify each completed sentence, emit only if it passes, drop the whole sentence if it does not.
  • The cost is time-to-first-sentence instead of time-to-first-token, which is affordable and worth paying.
  • Streaming cannot use JSON, so use inline markers in plain text while sharing one verifier with the non-streaming path; strip markers from the prose and send numbers as structured data.
  • Emit pre-generation refusals before the stream opens; the post-generation one manifests as an empty stream and is closed with a refusal event.