Skip to content

veeamhub.veeam

Administer Veeam Software

Health score

71 / 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 6 of 8 signal groups.

Four are needed before a score is published.

4 needed

Category subscores

Security
100%
Trust
60%
Quality
52%
Maintenance
75%
ansible-core compatibility
85%
Every signal we evaluated for this collection
Signals we could observe
security.dependency_boundednessPassed2 of 2 dependencies bounded1 / 1Published artifact
trust.link_claimsPartly met2 of 4 link URLs declared0.6 / 1Published artifact
quality.docsPartly metreadme, 1 doc file2.1 / 3Published artifact
quality.changelogNot metno changelog file, 0 fragments0 / 2Published artifact
quality.license_qualityPartly metlicense file declared, no SPDX id0.45 / 1Published artifact
quality.ciPartly met4 workflow files, 0 other CI files1.6 / 2Published artifact
maintenance.release_recencyPassedlast release 76 days ago3 / 3Galaxy index
maintenance.changelog_recencyNot metno changelog in the published artifact0 / 1Published artifact
compat.requires_ansiblePartly met>=2.16.02.55 / 3Published artifact
Signals we could not observeNot observed — these are left out of the score rather than counted against it.
trust.ansible_membershipNot observednot shipped in the ansible packageexcluded from this scoreansible-build-data
quality.testsNot observedno test evidence in the published artifactexcluded from this scorePublished artifact
compat.membership_currencyNot observednot shipped in the ansible packageexcluded from this scoreansible-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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • trust.link_claims

    Declare the link fields your collection actually has in `galaxy.yml` — `repository`, `documentation`, `homepage` and `issues` — and correct any we reported as unparseable, which is usually a stray character rather than a wrong address. This is a metadata edit: we never fetch what is behind these URLs, so nothing about your hosting is being graded. Do not invent a URL to fill a field — a scaffolding placeholder left where it was born is shown on your page as the placeholder it is, and an honestly empty field reads better than a link that goes nowhere.

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.

DocumentationNot declared.
HomepageNot declared.

Authors

  • Chris Arceneaux (https://www.arsano.ninja/)
  • Markus Kraus (https://mycloudrevolution.com/)