API engineering
REST APIs that connect your product.
I develop REST APIs and connect external services to PHP and Laravel applications. Based in New Delhi, I work remotely with teams across India on API development and integration projects.
My experience covers JWT authentication, payment webhooks, subscription activation, email and SMS integrations, and application workflows that follow a verified event.
- REST endpoints for web application features and integrations.
- JWT authentication and access controls for protected workflows.
- Payment gateways, email services, SMS providers and webhooks.
01 / A CLOSER LOOK
Connect clients through a clear API contract
An API contract describes the request a client may send and the response it can rely on. That includes input names, validation rules, authentication, pagination and the difference between a successful operation and a rejected one. Consistency helps a web interface, a mobile application and an external integration handle the same business rules without guessing.
Changes to an established API need to consider existing consumers. Removing a field, changing its meaning or altering an error shape can affect a client that was not part of the latest development session. Examples and compatibility notes make the contract easier to review. The portfolio documents REST API work and integrations; the exact endpoints and access requirements of a live product should be confirmed through its own authorised documentation.
02 / A CLOSER LOOK
Identity, roles and record access
Authentication establishes who is making a request. Authorisation decides which actions and records that identity can access. A hidden button does not replace a server-side permission check: a protected operation must still check the user when a request reaches the application. Record ownership also matters when several teams or clients use the same system.
A role matrix can make the expected behaviour explicit. It should describe who may view, create, update, export or delete each kind of record, including exceptions such as an assigned owner or administrator. Session expiry and sign-out should have understandable outcomes. A review should include a permitted request and a denied request, so the boundary is demonstrated instead of inferred from the interface.
03 / A CLOSER LOOK
Validation that helps a person recover
Validation translates the requirements of an action into checks on the data being submitted. It covers required fields, permitted formats, allowed choices and relationships that must exist. Browser checks can provide immediate guidance, but server-side validation remains necessary because requests may arrive through another client or an edited form.
An error response should identify the affected input and provide a useful correction without exposing internal details. The interface should preserve appropriate entered values so that a person can fix one mistake without repeating the entire task. Success feedback should appear only after the intended operation has completed. Thinking through missing, duplicate and unexpected input is part of defining the workflow, not a separate cosmetic step after the screen is built.
04 / A CLOSER LOOK
Handle repeated events and partial failures
External services can send the same event more than once, and a request can fail after some work has completed. A safe event handler needs a way to recognise an event already applied and a clear definition of the operation that must happen together. This becomes especially important when a record change also triggers access, a notification or a scheduled task.
Useful review cases include a valid first delivery, a repeated delivery, an invalid event and a failure before the business action completes. The stored outcome should make it possible to understand what happened without recording secrets in logs. An integration is complete only when the expected event and its failure behaviour are understood; receiving a successful HTTP response from the provider does not prove the entire workflow worked.
05 / A CLOSER LOOK
Background work with visible outcomes
Some tasks do not need to keep a person waiting for a screen response. Sending a notification, producing a large export or processing an external event may be suitable for background work. The application still needs to record enough state to explain whether the task is queued, completed or requires attention.
Retries should be safe for an action that might already have partially completed. A job needs limits and a useful failure outcome rather than endlessly repeating work without visibility. Review the effect on the user as well: a success message should distinguish an accepted request from a completed delivery. These are planning considerations for asynchronous workflows, not a statement that every project in the portfolio uses the same queue or worker technology.
06 / A CLOSER LOOK
Review the complete journey
A screen can appear correct while the underlying workflow is incomplete. A useful review follows a record from its first creation through validation, persistence, reload, later edits and any linked action. It also checks what happens when a field is missing, an external service fails or a user attempts an action that their role does not permit.
The depth of testing should match the consequence of a mistake. An informational layout needs readable content and working navigation; a payment or permission change needs closer checks around state and access. Review notes should make the expected result visible, explain the conditions used and distinguish a verified outcome from a limitation that still needs attention. This is a review approach, not a claim that every historical project has identical test coverage.
07 / A CLOSER LOOK
Change existing systems deliberately
An existing application brings records, users and assumptions that cannot be ignored during a change. A migration should start by identifying the current schema and the operations that depend on it. Adding a field, changing a relationship or moving to a different runtime can affect reports, imports, integrations and earlier records as well as the screen currently being edited.
A useful migration plan explains the intended mapping, the checks that confirm it and the behaviour if some input does not fit the new structure. Representative data and relationship checks help reveal problems before the change reaches ordinary users. Existing private data should be handled only within the authorised environment. A public case study can explain the approach without publishing credentials, password hashes or customer information.
08 / A CLOSER LOOK
Make the next step understandable
A useful delivery includes enough context for the next person to operate the result. That can mean a short explanation of a workflow, where configuration belongs, how a record is managed or which external service is responsible for a particular result. Documentation should describe the application as it is delivered, including anything that remains outside the agreed scope.
Ongoing work may include content changes, bug fixes, performance reviews or new requirements after real use. Those are easier to discuss when the original boundaries and known limitations are recorded. Source access, hosting responsibilities, credentials and support arrangements should be agreed directly for the engagement; the presence of a public project link does not imply permission to access its private administration area.