dellemc.vplex
Ansible Modules for Dell EMC VPLEX
Health score
77 / 100
Healthy, with room to improve.
- Excellent
- Good (this collection)
- Fair
- Poor
- Not scored
Observed 6 of 8 signal groups.
Four are needed before a score is published.
4 needed
Category subscores
- Security
- 100%
- Trust
- 100%
- Quality
- 64%
- Maintenance
- 55%
- 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.link_claims | Passed | 4 of 4 link URLs declared | 1 / 1 | Published artifact |
| quality.docs | Passed | readme, 20 doc files | 3 / 3 | Published artifact |
| quality.changelog | Partly met | CHANGELOG.md only, 0 fragments | 0.9 / 2 | Published artifact |
| quality.license_quality | Partly met | license file declared, no SPDX id | 0.45 / 1 | Published artifact |
| quality.ci | Partly met | 0 workflow files, 1 other CI file | 0.8 / 2 | Published artifact |
| maintenance.release_recency | Partly met | last release 391 days ago | 1.8 / 3 | Galaxy index |
| maintenance.changelog_recency | Partly met | 0 unreleased changelog fragments | 0.4 / 1 | Published artifact |
| compat.requires_ansible | Passed | >=2.17.0 | 3 / 3 | Published artifact |
| Signals we could not observeNot observed — these are left out of the score rather than counted against it. | ||||
| trust.ansible_membership | Not observed | not shipped in the ansible package | excluded from this score | ansible-build-data |
| quality.tests | Not observed | no test evidence in the published artifact | excluded from this score | Published artifact |
| compat.membership_currency | Not observed | not shipped in the ansible package | excluded from this score | 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.
- quality.license_quality
Declare a machine-readable SPDX identifier in `galaxy.yml`’s `license` field rather than relying on a `LICENSE` file alone: an identifier is what a consuming organisation’s policy tooling reads without a human opening the file. A `LICENSES/` directory following REUSE ranks above a bare root licence file and below the identifier. One exception worth stating: we record the identifier you publish rather than validating it against the SPDX list, so a wrong identifier will earn these marks and mislead your users at the same time — if no SPDX identifier fits your licence, publish the file instead.
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.
Links
Authors
- Mohana Priya Sivalingam <vplex.ansible@dell.com>
- Sherene Jean Prathiba <vplex.ansible@dell.com>
- Venkatesh Mariyappan <vplex.ansible@dell.com>
- Amit Uniyal <vplex.ansible@dell.com>
- Hema Sasank Marepalli <vplex.ansible@dell.com>
- Chandra Prakash Boinapally <vplex.ansible@dell.com>
- Ajay Prajapati <vplex.ansible@dell.com>
- Aman Kumar Sahani <vplex.ansible@dell.com>
- Yogesh Rao Sarode <vplex.ansible@dell.com>