Proving That Backend Mode Cannot Load the Mocks
Import restrictions, throw-on-load route tests and a no-file assertion established a runtime boundary while deployment cleanup retained its own evidence
Reviewed by Dmytro Nasyrov on October 22, 2026.
Our reader and admin screens already called real services, yet their gateways still depended on mock infrastructure. A deployment flag enabled routing to the backend, unforwarded operations constructed a mock root value, and permission checks came from the mocks package. Real data on the screen did not prove that demo data had left the request path.
We changed the frontend boundary so backend mode could not silently answer from the demo store. The useful result was a collection of enforceable failure cases: an unsupported field was refused, an unreachable service remained an error, and loading the mocks during a backend-mode request broke a test.
The flag described the wrong responsibility
Before this stage, the mock flag also enabled backend routing. Turning it off could leave sign-in working while GraphQL requests failed. Meanwhile, constructing an unused mock root could still open and seed the shared demo file. We separated the modes by their permitted data sources. An explicitly enabled mock mode kept the development and test paths. Backend mode used the backend and identity service, with required configuration checked directly. A missing service setting produced a named configuration failure.
This was a runtime contract, not a promise that the entire repository contained no sample data. Mock development remained useful. The narrower requirement was that a deployed backend-mode operation could not load a mock value or open its database file.
Unknown operations had to remain unknown
We classified gateway fields into forwarded operations and explicitly implemented local resolvers. A field outside those sets returned 400 UNKNOWN_FIELD. An operation mixing incompatible forwarding paths retained its separate refusal. The gateway did not complete a partially recognized request with whatever the demo root happened to know.
That changed how an incomplete integration appeared. Instead of a plausible demonstration value hiding a missing contract, the caller received a named error. A backend outage still produced an upstream failure. We made missing integration visible; we did not measure or claim better service availability.
| Backend-mode request | Permitted outcome |
|---|---|
| Known backend field | Forward through its guarded service path |
| Known identity field | Resolve through the identity service |
| Unrecognized root field | UNKNOWN_FIELD with the field identified |
| Unavailable upstream | Upstream error, without demo substitution |
Moving the import boundary mattered
Permission checking no longer belonged in a package whose runtime responsibility was demo data. We moved that check beside the shared authorization helpers, retaining the existing distinctions between an absent session and a role lacking permission.
The mock modules were reached through a dynamic import inside the mock branch. Backend-mode modules no longer imported a runtime mock value just to obtain a type or a lookup helper. Where a resolver needed names or scope, it received the relevant provider rather than constructing a demo database.
This prevented a small convenience import from reopening the dependency we were removing. A gateway can avoid calling a mock function while still loading a module with file initialization side effects. The requirement had to cover loading, not merely the final value returned.
We tested the forbidden dependency
The static import rule rejected runtime mock imports outside the allowed modules and tests. Route tests then replaced the mocks package with a module that threw when loaded. Backend-mode forwarding and local resolver cases had to work despite that trap. The same tests exercised unknown-field refusal and checked that the configured mock database file was not created. A passing response alone would have missed an unused file being opened. The no-file assertion examined a side effect the visible response could not reveal.
Mock-mode suites remained separate. Their continued success showed that we preserved the intentional development path; it did not count as proof of backend isolation. The two modes carried different assertions because they allowed different dependencies.
Manifest cleanup was a separate operational step
The associated change removed the mock environment settings and volume references from deployment manifests. That did not by itself establish that a previously created persistent volume had been deleted. The release checklist left the destructive cleanup to the operator after rollout. We keep that distinction in the engineering record. A reviewed manifest describes the desired workload. A cluster check observes a running environment. Deletion of an old volume is another event with its own receipt. The frontend merge cannot stand in for all of them.
Evidence scope
The October implementation merge reports serial package checks, build validation and browser checks against a local development cluster. The roadmap marks the no-mocks deployment stage complete. These are historical implementation receipts, not a new infrastructure audit.
Some product content still remained static by explicit scope, including suggested peer starting points. Removing mock request handlers did not make every card a live aggregate. Our claim concerns the runtime boundary demonstrated by import restrictions, load traps and file assertions, rather than a blanket label applied to every screen.
FAQ
Quick answers to common questions about custom software development, pricing, process and technology.
Type to filter questions and answers. Use Topic to narrow the list.
Showing all 14
No matches
Try a different keyword, change the topic or clear filters
-
How long have you been in business?
Pharos Production has been in business since 2013, with over 13 years of experience in custom software development. During this time, we have delivered over 110 applications for 200+ clients across 28 industries, including FinTech, healthcare, crypto and e-commerce. We are rated 5/5 on Clutch based on 107 verified reviews (2026).
-
What services do you provide?
Pharos Production provides six core service categories: AI Development (LLM applications, AI agents, machine learning and computer vision), Blockchain and Web3 (smart contracts, DeFi, tokenization on Ethereum, Solana, TON and other chains), FinTech Development (payment platforms, digital banking, KYC and AML integration), Software Development (mobile apps, web platforms, database design, UI/UX), Security and QA (code audits, penetration testing, smart contract audits, manual and automated testing) and Consulting (architecture design, MVP validation, startup consulting).
-
Where is Pharos Production located?
Pharos Production is headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada, USA (5348 Vegas Dr, Las Vegas, NV 89108), with an engineering office in Kyiv, Ukraine (44-B Eugene Konovalets Str. Suite 201, Kyiv 01133). We work with clients worldwide and provide remote collaboration across all time zones. Visit our contact page for directions and scheduling options.
-
How big is your team?
Pharos Production has a team of 90+ engineers, including software developers, blockchain specialists, QA engineers, DevOps experts, UI/UX designers, project managers and solution architects. Our founder, Dr. Dmytro Nasyrov, holds a PhD in Artificial Intelligence and leads the technical direction of all projects.
-
What types of customers do you serve?
We serve a wide range of clients, from startups and product companies to mid-sized enterprises and large institutions. Our clients include crypto exchanges, FinTech providers (like Pleenk), healthcare organizations, sportsbook operators (like Pro Gambling), e-commerce platforms and SaaS companies. Pharos Production has worked with 200+ clients across 28 industries since 2013, adapting engagement models to match each client's stage, whether it is MVP validation for a startup or enterprise-scale development for an established business.
-
How is a custom software development company different from an agency?
A custom software development company like Pharos Production assigns one dedicated engineering team that owns your product across multiple release cycles, instead of handing it off once a contract ends. Agencies more often rotate staff between clients and optimize for fast delivery over long-term product ownership.
Pharos Production keeps the same team on your codebase through 2-week sprints, so there is no re-onboarding cost each time you request a new feature.
-
How much does custom software development cost?
Custom software development costs vary based on project scope and complexity. At Pharos Production, typical project ranges are: MVP development ($10,000-$25,000), suitable for startups validating a product idea; full-fledged production ($25,000-$50,000), for established businesses scaling a proven concept; and full-cycle development ($50,000-$80,000+), for complex enterprise-grade systems. These ranges include architecture design, development, QA testing and deployment. Hourly rates range from $50 to $99 depending on role and seniority. Final pricing depends on technology stack, number of integrations and engagement model (staff augmentation, dedicated team or project outsourcing).
-
How long does it take to develop a custom software application?
Development timelines depend on scope and complexity. At Pharos Production, a typical MVP takes 2-4 months, a production-ready application takes 4-8 months and a complex enterprise system can take 8-12+ months. We use an agile methodology with 2-week sprints, delivering working increments after each sprint. Every sprint includes a retrospective, progress report and planning session for the next iteration. This approach ensures transparency and allows businesses to launch faster by prioritizing high-impact features first. Get a timeline estimate for your project.
-
What industries does Pharos Production serve?
Pharos Production serves 28 industries: FinTech, MiCA Compliance, Banking, Insurance, Crypto, Healthcare, Fitness, E-Commerce, Food & Restaurant, On-Demand, Manufacturing, Automotive, Energy, Oil & Gas, Supply Chain, Construction, Real Estate, Gaming, Streaming, Media, Telecom, Education, Aviation, Travel, Logistics, Marketing, Agriculture and Recommender Systems. Our deepest expertise is in FinTech, blockchain and healthcare, where we have delivered compliance-ready platforms (HIPAA, PCI DSS, GDPR) and high-load systems handling thousands of concurrent users. For the latest industry insights, read our guides on FinTech trends in 2026 and the Web3 technology stack.
-
Why hire a software development company instead of building in-house?
Hiring a software development company offers faster time-to-market, lower upfront costs and access to specialized expertise without long-term employment commitments. According to Deloitte's 2024 Global Outsourcing Survey, 57% of companies outsource software development to access skills they cannot hire internally.
Factor In-house team Software development company Time to assemble 3-6 months (recruiting + onboarding) 1-2 weeks Upfront cost High (salaries, benefits, equipment) Lower (project-based pricing) Specialized expertise Limited to who you can hire locally Access to 90+ engineers across blockchain, AI, FinTech Scalability Slow (each new hire takes months) Fast (scale up or down per sprint) Long-term commitment Full-time employment contracts Flexible engagement models Risk High if key engineers leave Company ensures continuity and knowledge transfer For businesses that need blockchain, AI or high-load architecture expertise, outsourcing to a specialized firm like Pharos Production reduces risk and accelerates delivery.
-
What projects does Pharos Production not take on?
Pharos Production focuses on mid-to-large custom software projects with budgets starting at $10,000. We do not take on template-based websites, WordPress theme customization or short-term contracts under one month. We also do not provide non-technical staffing (marketing, sales or design-only roles). Our strongest fit is blockchain, FinTech and healthcare projects where security, compliance and high-load architecture are critical. For smaller projects or MVPs under $10,000, we recommend exploring freelance platforms or no-code tools as a more cost-effective starting point.
-
Why does Pharos Production use agile methodology?
We use agile with 2-week sprints because it reduces the risk of building features that miss the mark. Each sprint ends with a working demo, a retrospective and a plan for the next iteration.
This means clients see progress every 14 days and can adjust priorities based on real results, not assumptions. We chose this approach after years of experience showing that rigid, fixed-scope contracts lead to scope creep, missed deadlines and products that do not match market needs by launch day.
-
When should you NOT hire a custom software development company?
Custom development is not the right choice in every situation. You should not hire a custom software company if: your problem is fully solved by an existing SaaS product (e.g. Shopify for e-commerce, Salesforce for CRM); your budget is under $10,000 and timeline is under 4 weeks; you need a simple landing page or marketing website (WordPress or Webflow is faster and cheaper); or you are still validating the idea and have not spoken to potential users yet.
In these cases, off-the-shelf tools or no-code platforms offer better ROI. Custom development makes sense when you need unique workflows, regulatory compliance, high-load architecture or competitive differentiation that packaged software cannot provide.
-
What kind of projects has Pharos Production delivered?
Here are three anonymized examples from our recent delivery history:
FinTech startup - payment platform (MVP)
Scope: mobile app + backend API with bank-grade encryption. Team: 4 engineers, 1 QA. Timeline: 10 weeks. Budget: $38,000. Result: launched on schedule, processed $2M+ in transactions within the first quarter.Healthcare provider - patient portal (Full product)
Scope: HIPAA-aligned web platform with EHR integration, appointment scheduling and telemedicine. Team: 6 engineers, 1 DevOps, 2 QA. Timeline: 6 months. Budget: $120,000. Result: 15,000+ active patients, zero compliance violations in two annual audits.Crypto exchange - trading engine (Complex)
Scope: high-load matching engine handling 50,000+ orders per second, multi-chain wallet infrastructure on Ethereum and Solana. Team: 8 engineers, 2 QA, 1 security auditor. Timeline: 11 months. Budget: $340,000. Result: 99.97% uptime, passed three independent security audits.See more projects: NoMoreBets, Pulse, Sagas, Gambit Stream and Pleenk. For the full portfolio, visit our case studies. Learn more about the technology behind these projects in our guide to stablecoins and crypto infrastructure.
Stas Rysin is the Lead Frontend Developer at Pharos Production. His work covers the design system, reader interfaces and administration workflows of a professional learning platform for aesthetic medicine.
