Skip to main content

Pending gaps vs Zernio

Internal tracker for LazyApp vs Zernio WhatsApp API. Code wins — update this file when we ship or explicitly decline something. Last reviewed: 2026-10-08 (catalog sync, groups, funding, and the Meta proxy are in the API reference)
This page is for the LazyApp team and implementers comparing surfaces to Zernio. Customer-facing docs link here only where we explicitly document a skip.

Zernio OpenAPI spec (zernio-api-openapi.yaml)

What it is: Zernio’s full public API contract (OpenAPI 3.1, version 1.0.4, base https://zernio.com/api/v1). ~418 path entries — mostly multi-network (IG, X, TikTok, ads, analytics, posting queue), not WhatsApp-only. Also published for RapidAPI (x-documentation, x-badges). Use it for: machine-readable diff of path names, request shapes, and WhatsApp-specific routes under /v1/whatsapp/* and /v1/inbox/*. Do not treat it as LazyApp’s contract — confirm everything in lazyapp/routes/v1.php and docs/api-contract.json (~115 operations after Wave 3).

Path-by-path (WhatsApp-relevant)

LazyApp-only: /v1/events, automation packs, /v1/capabilities, Meta-compat /meta/whatsapp/..., platform customers / setup links / embed tokens, contact suppress/consent/merge, plan 402 (plan_limit_reached), idempotency on writes.

Product — build later

Intentionally out of scope

Docs — Zernio pages vs LazyApp

Where LazyApp is ahead (no gap)

  • Broadcast compliance (consent, exclusions, quiet hours, pacing)
  • Verify OTP, events, automation packs
  • Platform customers, setup links, embed inbox
  • Meta proxy for Kapso / Cloud API migrants
  • Idempotency, cursor pagination, usage ledger

Suggested build order

  1. Broadcast per-recipient template variables
  2. Contact segments API
  3. Groups / calling when Meta enables
  4. CTWA if customer demand
  5. Template library API if onboarding friction is high