elastiflow.netobserv
Ansible collection for ElastiFlow NetObserv roles and playbooks.
Health score
83 / 100
Strong evidence across everything we could observe.
- Excellent (this collection)
- Good
- 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
- 57%
- Maintenance
- 85%
- ansible-core compatibility
- 100%
| Signal | Verdict | What we found | Points | Proved by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Signals we could observe | ||||
| security.dependency_boundedness | Passed | 3 of 3 dependencies bounded | 1 / 1 | Published artifact |
| trust.link_claims | Passed | 4 of 4 link URLs declared | 1 / 1 | Published artifact |
| quality.docs | Partly met | readme, 0 doc files | 1.5 / 3 | Published artifact |
| quality.changelog | Partly met | CHANGELOG.md only, 0 fragments | 0.9 / 2 | Published artifact |
| quality.license_quality | Passed | SPDX id declared (Apache-2.0) | 1 / 1 | Published artifact |
| maintenance.release_recency | Passed | last release 65 days ago | 3 / 3 | Galaxy index |
| maintenance.changelog_recency | Partly met | 0 unreleased changelog fragments | 0.4 / 1 | Published artifact |
| compat.requires_ansible | Passed | >=2.16.0,<3.0.0 | 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 |
| quality.ci | Not observed | no CI 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.
- 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.
Links
Authors
- ElastiFlow Engineering Team <engineering@elastiflow.com>