VetTrellis.
From a first conversation to a stronger veterinary team. VetTrellis brings the people, context, and coordination behind recruitment into one considered product experience.
Backend, security & integration · with Drew
Good people.
Meaningful connections.
Keep people and possibilities connected.
Preserve the original product. Establish the private backend. Verify the connection.
A relationship product with a data boundary
Veterinary recruitment depends on context: the people involved, the opportunity being discussed, and what needs to happen next. VetTrellis brings those relationships into a product experience rather than treating each conversation as an isolated record. The public marketing site introduces that experience and is live at vettrellis.com.
The engineering work starts with an existing application, not an empty repository. Drew’s original frontend and application need to be preserved while a standalone backend is prepared and connected. Public discovery and private candidate information also have different audiences. That separation shapes the architecture, the integration work, and what can responsibly be shown in this case study.
Visit the marketing site ↗Two contributions. One product vision.
Drew
Original idea & application
Casey Knott
Backend, security & integration
Drew owns the original idea and the original frontend/application. His contribution established the product direction and the experience at its center. Casey’s work builds alongside that foundation: standalone backend, security, integration, preservation and migration preparation, testing, and deployment coordination.
AI assistants support implementation and review under human direction. Casey’s contribution is the engineering work of setting scope, directing the assistants, checking their output, and coordinating the connection to Drew’s product. These roles describe shared implementation work and distinct ownership.
Public presence. Private context.
The public marketing surface and application backend serve separate purposes. The marketing site explains the product; the application needs an access boundary around its operational data. A separate Supabase application schema and private upload buckets are installed. The application experience must connect to those backend resources through the intended integration.
The distinction between a database schema and file storage matters. Structured application records and uploaded documents need to be handled as separate resources, with privacy considered for both. A private bucket is a backend foundation, while the connected application still needs acceptance checks that confirm the full user experience respects that boundary.
A read-only screen still allowed a write
A concrete integration problem exposed the difference between interface behavior and authorization: a read-only UI did not prevent backend writes. Hiding or disabling a control only changes what the screen offers. The underlying request still needs its own permission check.
The repair was checked through direct API and RPC requests, clinic boundaries, retries, and role changes. That moved the test target from whether a button looked disabled to whether the backend rejected an action the caller was not allowed to perform. The work exercises multi-tenant authorization and regression testing at the actual data boundary.
Make retries safe and unavailable features truthful
Concurrent Hire requests could overwrite outcome details. The repair made identical retries idempotent while rejecting conflicting updates. This distinguishes a repeated request for the same result from a different request trying to replace it—a practical concurrency problem that a single successful click would not reveal.
Frontend/backend contract reconciliation also exposed unsupported AI functionality and misleading zero cost values. Truthful unavailable states replaced the appearance of a working capability or a known zero value. This protects information integrity: unavailable, unknown, and zero are different states, and the interface should not collapse them into the same answer.
Test the repair at the boundary that failed
Isolated tests exercised authentication, candidate records, private résumés, follow-ups, Relief, and Events. Authorization repairs were checked through direct backend requests; concurrent-request behavior was tested around retries and conflicting updates. Regression, browser, and recovery testing supported the integration work, with original source preserved and synthetic test records used.
The marketing site is live, and the separate Supabase application schema and private upload buckets are installed. Full hosted application acceptance and real-data migration remain incomplete. The distinction matters: successful isolated tests demonstrate the tested engineering behavior, while a production release requires the connected hosted experience and migration to be accepted as well.
Make the handoff as deliberate as the build
The authorization defect turned a general security principle into a concrete testing practice: UI restrictions are not permission checks. Testing direct requests, clinic boundaries, and role changes demonstrates Casey’s work on multi-tenant access control. Testing simultaneous Hire requests and retries develops the same discipline around race conditions and idempotency.
Contract reconciliation strengthened a different boundary: what the product tells the user. Rejecting misleading zero values and unsupported AI behavior keeps the interface aligned with the backend’s actual capability. Preserving Drew’s source and separating local test success from hosted acceptance connect those technical fixes to collaboration and release judgment.
The product illustration uses synthetic content. Full hosted application acceptance and real-data migration are not claimed complete.
↖ Return to the world Keep exploring