I will describe the facts without personal opinion:
They offered work on a long-term project.
The contractor asked for a simple task to start with, estimated at 2 days of work.
On Friday after 21:00, he sent the results.
He himself reported that he did not do some parts of the task.
During the review, it turned out that some other points were not completed.
Some points were done as he wanted, for example: marking that a place is unavailable after purchase. But it is not marked; instead, the contractor made it so that only if you buy all the places, there will be a message that all places are purchased, which does not match the task description.
Three days have passed since the deadline, after talking with a technical specialist, he promised to fix everything.
He did not answer directly to questions like "when will we finish." He replied that he plans to finish but did not specify when.
Later, he simply started ignoring messages. We assumed there could be force majeure, but it turned out he read the messages, just did not want to respond, which he himself admitted.
A week passed, and the contractor stated that he could not cope because he could not understand the project architecture.
During the technical check, he sent a screenshot of his problem, which showed that the architecture and features of the project are not related to the core issue, and the error was logical — an attempt to link the order content to a non-existent order (confused the ID). Subsequently, he admitted that the error was not related to architecture or confusion in the project.
He also stated (during the collaboration) that he has other projects and a team, and he cannot keep up with them, so he will not finish.
After the conversation, he still said he would try to finish. And this happened several times.
As a result, 8 days have passed, and we simply lost time. The contractor offered to give the code for free in exchange for no review (the code is incorrect and not worth reusing; it’s easier to write it correctly from scratch, especially since the task is trivial). If he had offered this before the deadline failure, we might have agreed, but the amount of time spent and promises without results is unacceptable.
To be fair, it should be noted that the contractor was often willing to admit mistakes, although there were attempts to "blame" the project itself. He communicated politely and adequately until he started disappearing.
To be fair, it should be noted that the contractor, judging by everything, is not a scammer or intermediary; he has some experience and can do some tasks, as part of the assignment was completed, albeit in a peculiar way.
To be fair, it should be noted that working with this contractor is possible on some projects, but only if your project is simple and you are willing to extend deadlines significantly.
To be fair, it should be noted that the contractor did not overcharge and figured out the project deployment without questions to us.
Whether to work with Denis or not depends on the situation, up to you.
