Skip to content

dalibo.essential

The Dalibo Essential Collections is a set of Ansible roles for the Dalibo Postgres Platform.

Health score

89 / 100

Excellent

Strong evidence across everything we could observe.

How bands are set →

  1. Excellent (this collection)
  2. Good
  3. Fair
  4. Poor
  5. Not scored

Observed 7 of 8 signal groups.

Four are needed before a score is published.

4 needed

Category subscores

Security
100%
Trust
85%
Quality
75%
Maintenance
93%
ansible-core compatibility
100%
Every signal we evaluated for this collection
Signals we could observe
security.dependency_boundednessPassedno dependencies declared1 / 1Published artifact
trust.link_claimsPartly met3 of 4 link URLs declared0.85 / 1Published artifact
quality.docsPartly metreadme, 0 doc files1.5 / 3Published artifact
quality.changelogPassedchangelog.yaml, 1 fragment2 / 2Published artifact
quality.license_qualityPassedSPDX id declared (GPL-3.0-or-later)1 / 1Published artifact
quality.testsPassedroles-only: 0 unit, 0 integration, 0 sanity, 14 molecule3 / 3Published artifact
quality.ciPartly met0 workflow files, 1 other CI file0.8 / 2Published artifact
maintenance.release_recencyPassedlast release 127 days ago3 / 3Galaxy index
maintenance.changelog_recencyPartly met1 unreleased changelog fragment0.7 / 1Published artifact
compat.requires_ansiblePassed>=2.19.03 / 3Published artifact
Signals we could not observeNot observed — these are left out of the score rather than counted against it.
trust.ansible_membershipNot observednot shipped in the ansible packageexcluded from this scoreansible-build-data
compat.membership_currencyNot observednot shipped in the ansible packageexcluded from this scoreansible-build-data

No repository evidence yet. ansible.care has not read any collection's Git repository, so every signal above was proved from a published artifact or from Ansible’s own build data. Tests and CI in particular can be proved present this way but never proved absent — so when we cannot see them, we leave them out of the score rather than counting them against you.

What is costing points

Each of these is a signal we observed and could not fully credit.

  • quality.docs

    Ship your README and your `docs/` directory INSIDE the published tarball, not only in your Git repository — we do not read repositories at all yet, so a file that exists only there is a file we cannot see. If your `build_ignore` excludes `docs/`, that exclusion is why we observed nothing. Beyond the README this rule counts documentation FILES, so splitting a long README into per-module and per-role pages is what moves it; adding filler pages to raise a count would satisfy the arithmetic and help nobody.

  • maintenance.changelog_recency

    Write a fragment into `changelogs/fragments/` as each change lands, rather than composing release notes at release time. This reads the same published file as the Quality changelog rule, so shipping and maintaining a changelog answers both at once — if a page told you twice to ship a changelog it would be describing one missing file as two problems. One thing this rule does NOT ask for: an empty fragments directory is not the goal, and cutting a release clears your fragments by design. A maintained changelog with nothing pending still earns partial credit here, so releasing your work does not cost you this rule.

  • trust.link_claims

    Declare the link fields your collection actually has in `galaxy.yml` — `repository`, `documentation`, `homepage` and `issues` — and correct any we reported as unparseable, which is usually a stray character rather than a wrong address. This is a metadata edit: we never fetch what is behind these URLs, so nothing about your hosting is being graded. Do not invent a URL to fill a field — a scaffolding placeholder left where it was born is shown on your page as the placeholder it is, and an honestly empty field reads better than a link that goes nowhere.

What would strengthen this score

These signals can only add points in the current scoring version — they are never counted against you.

  • quality.ci

    Publish your CI configuration inside the artifact. `.github/workflows/` is what we count most precisely, and other CI config files earn partial credit when your automation runs somewhere we cannot enumerate as exactly. `build_ignore` commonly strips `.github/`, again on the packaging documentation’s own advice, so an absence here is a gap in what we could read rather than a statement that your collection has no CI. In this scoring version this rule can only add points: an unobserved CI signal leaves your calculation rather than scoring zero, so this is worth doing for the credit and never to avoid a deduction.

DocumentationNot declared.

Authors

  • DALIBO SCOP <contact@dalibo.com> (https://www.dalibo.com)