Skip to content

graphiant.naas

Ansible collection for Graphiant NaaS network automation

Health score

75 / 100

Good

Healthy, with room to improve.

How bands are set →

  1. Excellent
  2. Good (this collection)
  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
0%
Trust
87%
Quality
69%
Maintenance
85%
ansible-core compatibility
100%
Every signal we evaluated for this collection
Signals we could observe
security.dependency_boundednessNot met0 of 1 dependencies bounded0 / 1Published artifact
trust.ansible_membershipPartly metships in 2 ansible package majors1.6 / 2ansible-build-data
trust.link_claimsPassed4 of 4 link URLs declared1 / 1Published artifact
quality.docsPassedreadme, 13 doc files3 / 3Published artifact
quality.changelogPartly metchangelog.yaml, 0 fragments1.6 / 2Published artifact
quality.license_qualityPartly metlicense file declared, no SPDX id0.45 / 1Published artifact
quality.testsPartly metplugins-only: 42 unit, 0 integration, 0 sanity, 0 molecule1.2 / 3Published artifact
maintenance.release_recencyPassedlast release 0 days ago3 / 3Galaxy index
maintenance.changelog_recencyPartly met0 unreleased changelog fragments0.4 / 1Published artifact
compat.requires_ansiblePassed>=2.17.03 / 3Published artifact
compat.membership_currencyPassedships in ansible 14 (current is 12)1 / 1ansible-build-data
Signals we could not observeNot observed — these are left out of the score rather than counted against it.
quality.ciNot observedno CI evidence in the published artifactexcluded from this scorePublished artifact

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.

  • security.dependency_boundedness

    Give every collection dependency you declare in `galaxy.yml` an upper or pinned bound — `<`, `<=`, `==` or `~=` — so that installing your collection cannot silently pull in an arbitrary future release of somebody else’s. If your collection declares no dependencies at all this rule already awards full marks and there is nothing here to change. If we reported a dependency we could not read, the fix is the syntax of its version range rather than the dependency itself.

  • 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.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.

  • trust.ansible_membership

    There is nothing in your own metadata that earns this. Inclusion in the community `ansible` package is a human review against the community collection requirements, and it is opt-in — the route is to request inclusion through the Ansible community process. Most collections never enter it, and we do not observe this rule for them at all rather than scoring it zero, so not being in the package costs you nothing here. Tenure then accrues across `ansible` package majors, which makes this the slowest signal on the page to move and the one least worth chasing for the points.

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.

Authors

  • Graphiant Team <support@graphiant.com>