dellemc.unity
Ansible modules for Unity
Health score
84 / 100
Strong evidence across everything we could observe.
- Excellent (this collection)
- Good
- Fair
- Poor
- Not scored
Observed 7 of 8 signal groups.
Four are needed before a score is published.
4 needed
Category subscores
- Security
- 100%
- Trust
- 100%
- Quality
- 71%
- Maintenance
- 74%
- ansible-core compatibility
- 100%
| Signal | Verdict | What we found | Points | Proved by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Signals we could observe | ||||
| security.dependency_boundedness | Passed | no dependencies declared | 1 / 1 | Published artifact |
| trust.ansible_membership | Passed | ships in 8 ansible package majors | 2 / 2 | ansible-build-data |
| trust.link_claims | Passed | 4 of 4 link URLs declared | 1 / 1 | Published artifact |
| quality.docs | Passed | readme, 30 doc files | 3 / 3 | Published artifact |
| quality.changelog | Partly met | changelog.yaml, 0 fragments | 1.6 / 2 | Published artifact |
| quality.license_quality | Passed | SPDX id declared (GPL-3.0-or-later, Apache-2.0) | 1 / 1 | Published artifact |
| quality.tests | Partly met | plugins-only: 27 unit, 0 integration, 0 sanity, 0 molecule | 1.2 / 3 | Published artifact |
| quality.ci | Partly met | 1 workflow file, 0 other CI files | 1 / 2 | Published artifact |
| maintenance.release_recency | Partly met | last release 363 days ago | 2.55 / 3 | Galaxy index |
| maintenance.changelog_recency | Partly met | 0 unreleased changelog fragments | 0.4 / 1 | Published artifact |
| compat.requires_ansible | Passed | >=2.17 | 3 / 3 | Published artifact |
| compat.membership_currency | Passed | ships in ansible 14 (current is 12) | 1 / 1 | ansible-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.changelog
Ship a `changelogs/changelog.yaml` — the structured form `antsibull-changelog` generates and the `ansible` package consumes — rather than only a hand-maintained `CHANGELOG.md`, and write a fragment into `changelogs/fragments/` as each change lands rather than reconstructing release notes at release time. Both have to be inside the published tarball to be observable: a changelog that lives only in your Git repository is one we cannot read. This is the single highest-leverage change for most collections, because the same missing file is what holds down both changelog rules in this rubric. If you already publish `changelog.yaml` with fragments, this rule is answered.
- maintenance.release_recency
Cut a release to Galaxy. This is the heaviest single rule in the rubric because a release is the one unambiguous, publisher-controlled act of maintenance we can observe without reading your repository — which is also its limitation, and worth saying plainly: a collection under active development that rarely releases is under-credited here, and that is a gap in what we can see rather than a judgement about the work. If your collection is finished rather than abandoned, there is nothing here you should change on our account.
What would strengthen this score
These signals can only add points in the current scoring version — they are never counted against you.
- quality.tests
Publish your test evidence inside the artifact: `molecule/` scenarios for a role collection, and `tests/unit/`, `tests/integration/` and `tests/sanity/` for a plugin collection. Ansible’s own packaging documentation suggests excluding `tests/` through `build_ignore`, so if you follow that advice we simply cannot see them — their absence from your tarball is a limit on what we read and never a claim that you have no tests. In this scoring version this rule can only add points: when we observe no test evidence the rule leaves your calculation entirely rather than scoring zero, so publishing tests can raise your score and withholding them cannot lower it.
- 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.
Links
Authors
- Akash Shendge <ansible.team@dell.com>
- Ambuj Dubey <ansible.team@dell.com>
- Arindam Datta <ansible.team@dell.com>
- P Srinivas Rao <ansible.team@dell.com>
- Rajshree Khare <ansible.team@dell.com>
- Vivek Soni <ansible.team@dell.com>
- Spandita Panigrahi <ansible.team@dell.com>
- Ananthu S Kuttattu <ansible.team@dell.com>
- Pavan Mudunuri <ansible.team@dell.com>