nokia.eda_natsimporter_v1alpha1
Ansible collection for Nokia EDA natsimporter application
Health score
71 / 100
Healthy, with room to improve.
- Excellent
- Good (this collection)
- Fair
- Poor
- Not scored
Observed 7 of 8 signal groups.
Four are needed before a score is published.
4 needed
Category subscores
- Security
- 0%
- Trust
- 100%
- Quality
- 51%
- Maintenance
- 85%
- ansible-core compatibility
- 100%
| Signal | Verdict | What we found | Points | Proved by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Signals we could observe | ||||
| security.dependency_boundedness | Not met | 0 of 1 dependencies bounded | 0 / 1 | Published artifact |
| trust.link_claims | Passed | 4 of 4 link URLs declared | 1 / 1 | Published artifact |
| quality.docs | Partly met | readme, 1 doc file | 2.1 / 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.tests | Partly met | plugins-only: 1 unit, 2 integration, 0 sanity, 0 molecule | 1.14 / 3 | Published artifact |
| maintenance.release_recency | Passed | last release 99 days ago | 3 / 3 | Galaxy index |
| maintenance.changelog_recency | Partly met | 0 unreleased changelog fragments | 0.4 / 1 | Published artifact |
| compat.requires_ansible | Passed | >=2.17.0 | 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.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.
- 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.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.
- 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.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.
Links
Authors
- Roman Dodin (@hellt)