PROPOSED PROJECT
API Update Checker
Help developers update software when an API—the connection between systems—changes. Compare the old and new instructions and sample code, list what needs changing, and test suggested fixes in a separate test environment.
A small change. Three places to check.
Fictional billing service · v1 → v2
/v1/invoices{
"id": "INV-041",
"amount_cents": 42000
}The amount is a single field, expressed in the smallest currency unit.
/v2/invoices{
"id": "INV-041",
"amount": {
"minor": 42000,
"currency": "PHP"
}
}The amount moves inside a named group and arrives with its currency.
Find what breaks
before the update ships.
A fictional billing integration moves from /v1/invoices to /v2/invoices. The old amount_cents field becomes amount.minor with a currency value, and numbered pages become a returned cursor. The example maps those changes to three client files, keeps 42,000 PHP minor units displayed as ₱420.00, and checks that two sample pages return all three invoice IDs. The displayed test report is illustrative, not a live vendor result.
WHAT IS USUALLY DONE
Developers read the new API instructions, search their code for old fields, and update the obvious request. Less visible consumers can be missed: a report still reads the old amount, or a list stops after the first page. Code can look correct while silently returning incomplete results.
WHAT SOVRUN CAN DO FOR YOU
Sovrun would build an update review workspace for one supplied integration. It compares old and new API instructions, sample responses, and the code that uses them. Code-aware models propose affected locations and draft changes with source references. The workflow then runs agreed checks against sample responses or an authorized test service, packages the suggested patch with observed results, and leaves release decisions with the engineers.
Follow the change
into the places that use it.
A renamed field can affect a screen, an export, and a calculation. The proposed checker compares supplied API instructions with the client’s code, then ties each suggested change to a specific test.
Call the new route.
Review the request in billing-client.js. Confirm the expected record can be read in the separate test service.
Read the new field.
Update invoice-total.js and retain the supplied currency. An absent amount must show an error, not a zero total.
Follow the next page.
Update invoice-list.js to use the returned page marker. Stop when no next marker is supplied.
These examples cover the supplied records only. Live-account permissions, response limits, and other consumers still need their own tests before release.
A change list
with evidence behind it.
The first build covers one integration, its supplied old and new instructions, and an agreed set of client files. Engineers receive changes they can inspect and run in their own test environment.
Know where to look.
- Request route
- billing-client.js
- Amount display
- invoice-total.js
- Page handling
- invoice-list.js
Preserve the value.
No changes merged or released automatically.
All three records.
Next marker: none. Stop here.
How we’d make it happen.
Compare the contract and the code
Identify changes in routes, fields, units, errors, and page handling. Follow each change to the client files that use it and record the supporting source passage.
Draft and test in isolation
Prepare a focused patch and run only agreed checks against supplied records or an authorized test service. Retain failures and unsupported assumptions in the report.
Review before release
An engineer reviews the patch, test evidence, and untested cases. Merge and release through the team’s existing process only after the outstanding checks are resolved.
Where AI helps
Language and code models read the supplied API instructions, follow field use through the agreed client files, and propose focused patches and tests. We compare models on missed dependencies, unsupported changes, and behavior against the supplied examples. Tests run in a separate environment with limited access; exact amounts, identifiers, and page results are checked by code rather than accepted because a model says the patch works.
What people approve
The engineering owner approves the code scope, test access, expected behavior, and proposed patch. Reviewers confirm behavior for missing data, permissions, error responses, and other consumers before merging. Instructions found in API documents or source comments are treated as content, not permission to execute arbitrary commands. The workflow does not deploy updates or use live customer credentials.
What we’d need to start
- Old and new API instructions, version dates, change notes, and representative responses
- The agreed integration files and their existing tests, with secrets removed
- An authorized test service or supplied sample responses, expected behavior, and an engineering reviewer
How we’d test it
Use known examples of renamed fields, nested values, missing amounts, changed page markers, and incompatible error responses. Verify that the review finds all agreed consumers and that proposed tests fail on the old behavior where expected. Confirm currency and unit preservation, no missing or duplicate records across pages, and no silent zero for an absent amount. Measure review effort and missed changes against the current manual process.
Prepared for Technology & software. We would agree on the work after reviewing your brief, materials, and requirements.
This is a proposed project, not completed client work. The visuals and numbers show example outputs, not measured results.
