Skip to content

telekom_mms.icinga_director

This collection contains Ansible modules to change objects in Icinga 2 using the director API.

Health score

88 / 100

Excellent

Strong evidence across everything we could observe.

How bands are set →

  1. Excellent (this collection)
  2. Good
  3. Fair
  4. Poor
  5. Not scored

Observed 5 of 8 signal groups.

Four are needed before a score is published.

4 needed

Category subscores

Security
100%
Trust
100%
Quality
93%
Maintenance
85%
ansible-core compatibility
70%
Every signal we evaluated for this collection
Signals we could observe
security.dependency_boundednessPassedno dependencies declared1 / 1Published artifact
trust.ansible_membershipPassedships in 7 ansible package majors2 / 2ansible-build-data
trust.link_claimsPassed4 of 4 link URLs declared1 / 1Published artifact
quality.docsPassedreadme, 49 doc files3 / 3Published artifact
quality.changelogPartly metchangelog.yaml, 0 fragments1.6 / 2Published artifact
quality.license_qualityPassedSPDX id declared (GPL-2.0-or-later)1 / 1Published artifact
maintenance.release_recencyPassedlast release 9 days ago3 / 3Galaxy index
maintenance.changelog_recencyPartly met0 unreleased changelog fragments0.4 / 1Published artifact
compat.requires_ansiblePartly met>=2.14.01.8 / 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.testsNot observedno test evidence in the published artifactexcluded from this scorePublished artifact
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.

  • compat.requires_ansible

    Declare a `requires_ansible` FLOOR in your `galaxy.yml` naming the oldest ansible-core you actually support, and declare an upper bound alongside it if you test against one — the bound is credited on top of whichever floor tier you reach in the table beside this rule. Declaring nothing now scores zero and STAYS in your score rather than dropping out of it, so omitting the field is no longer a way to avoid the question; if your score fell and you have never declared a floor, this is why. An exact pin or a `~=` compatible-release specifier earns only a small share, strictly below every floor tier: it is a real declaration we could read, so it beats silence, and it sits at the bottom because pinning ansible-core is the practice this category exists to discourage. Raising a floor you cannot actually support would be a false declaration, and this rule is not worth that.

  • 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.

Authors

  • Sebastian Gumprich <sebastian.gumprich@telekom.de>
  • Lars Krahl <lars.krahl@telekom.de>