Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-15 04:00 UTC

OCA / OpenUpgrade

Open source upgrade path for Odoo/OpenERP

Python · HTMLAGPL-3.0★ 985 stars⑂ 827 forkssince May 2014View on GitHub ↗

OCA/OpenUpgrade holds a health index of 89 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (90/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (33/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

89
overall / 100
Excellent

Software health index

Metrics are grouped into weighted categories on one standardized 1–100 scale. Overall starts as their weighted mean, calibrated against the distribution of the public record so bands carry percentile meaning; when public evidence triggers the High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy, the rating is adjusted and receives an At Risk ceiling of 34.

89
Exceptional93-100The record's top tier (≈ top 5%); essentially all checked criteria met
Excellent80-92Strong across the board; minor gaps
Good65-79Healthy; gaps are limited and manageable
Moderate50-64Acceptable with notable gaps; review recommended
Weak35-49Material weaknesses across several areas
At Risk20-34Significant weaknesses; adoption warrants caution
Critical1-19Severe problems (abandoned, single-maintainer, no hygiene)
VitalityCommunity &AdoptionSustainability &GovernanceEngineeringQualitySecurityAI Readiness

Score profile

Each axis is a category. The shape matters more than the average — a healthy subject fills the whole shape, while a spike-and-crater profile means strength in one dimension is masking risk in another.

The weighted overall 75 is calibrated to 89 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

4,997 followers266 public repossince May 2014

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIodoo-addons-oca-OpenUpgrade16.0.20230324.0451269 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?

71Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
27/36Commit cadence — 39/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 658 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 8 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year658
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year39
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 1 releases published
0/36Release recency — latest release 3,268 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — cadence unknown (single release)
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count1
latest_release_tagdatabases
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release3,268
mean_days_between_releases—

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

84Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
48.5/60Stars — 985 stars
24.3/25Forks — 827 forks
11.6/15Watchers — 123 watchers
Inputs used
forks827
stars985
watchers123
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (AGPL-3.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges4
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicescodecov.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

76Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 32% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 31 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 15 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled31
top_contributor_share0.325
How it's scored
40.4/42Issue resolution — 96% of issues closed
26.1/30PR acceptance — 4,295/4,928 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 7/7 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
12/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 8/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
merged_prs4,295
open_issues35
closed_issues901
prs_merged_7d6
prs_decided_7d8
prs_merged_30d42
prs_decided_30d47
issue_closed_ratio0.963
closed_unmerged_prs633
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d7
first_time_prs_decided_30d7
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
25/25Owner reach — 4,997 followers of OCA
25/25Track record — 266 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers4,997
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginOCA
public_repos266
account_age_days4,504
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
4/35Publish recency — latest publish 1,269 days ago
20/20Version history — 5 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesodoo-addons-oca-OpenUpgrade
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1,269

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

100Exceptional
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 10 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .pylintrc, .ruff.toml
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 11 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://oca.github.io/OpenUpgrade/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 7 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsodoo, python, migration, open-source, openerp, sql, tinyerp
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://oca.github.io/OpenUpgrade/
docs_sitehttps://oca.github.io/OpenUpgrade/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?

64Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 11 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6/7.5Code-Review — Found 8/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 15 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 8 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories30
affected_packages5
assessed_packages30
unassessed_packages39
affected_by_severityhigh 3, moderate 2
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 30 resolved dependencies against OSV. 39 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. Reachability is not analyzed.

AI Readiness

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight (4%): agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but a repository with none can still reach 100/100.

33At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
22.4/40Legible commit history — 42 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.42
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .pylintrc, .ruff.toml
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/192 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes7,389
source_files_sampled192
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

985GitHub stars
31contributors
658commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
1releases
2bus factor
35open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 827 ⇿
0Stars
827Forks
1Releases

When each star and fork was added, collected from GitHub and bucketed by day. Cumulative growth sits directly above the daily additions it is made of, so the two read against each other: steady organic accretion looks nothing like an abrupt, short-lived burst. Where that difference is measurable, it is reported as growth authenticity.

0200400600800769142014-052020-072026-08
Major 0Minor 0Patch 0

Each point covers 12 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.5 / 10
5.5aggregate

Independent, tool-agnostic security assessment from the open-source OpenSSF Scorecard. Each check rewards a security practice, not a specific vendor's tool. Checks Scorecard could not determine are marked n/a and excluded from the security score (never counted as zero).Scorecard v5.5.0 · 2026-09-15 04:00 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
10CI-Tests11 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
8Code-ReviewFound 8/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
10Contributorsproject has 15 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 8 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIodoo-addon-openupgrade_framework==19.0.*setup/_metapackage/pyproject.toml
PyPIodoo-addon-openupgrade_scripts==19.0.*setup/_metapackage/pyproject.toml
All dependencies 69

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 67 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIodoo-addon-openupgrade-framework—direct
PyPIodoo-addon-openupgrade-scripts—direct
PyPIbabel—indirect
PyPIbabel2.3.4indirect
PyPIdecorator—indirect
PyPIdecorator4.0.10indirect
PyPIdocutils—indirect
PyPIdocutils0.12indirect
PyPIebaysdk2.1.4indirect
PyPIfeedparser—indirect
PyPIfeedparser5.2.1indirect
PyPIgevent—indirect
PyPIgreenlet—indirect
PyPIhtml2text—indirect
PyPIhtml2text2016.9.19indirect
PyPIjinja2—indirect
PyPIjinja22.10.1indirect
PyPIlibsass—indirect
PyPIlxml—indirect
PyPImako—indirect
PyPImako1.0.4indirect
PyPImarkupsafe0.23indirect
PyPImock—indirect
PyPImock2.0.0indirect
PyPInum2words0.5.4indirect
PyPIodoorpc0.7.0indirect
PyPIofxparse—indirect
PyPIofxparse0.16indirect
PyPIopenupgradelib—indirect
PyPIpasslib—indirect
PyPIpasslib1.6.5indirect
PyPIpillow—indirect
PyPIpolib—indirect
PyPIpsutil—indirect
PyPIpsycopg2—indirect
PyPIpsycopg22.7.1indirect
PyPIpydot—indirect
PyPIpydot1.2.3indirect
PyPIpygithub—indirect
PyPIpyparsing—indirect
PyPIpyparsing2.1.10indirect
PyPIpypdf2—indirect
PyPIpypdf21.26.0indirect
PyPIpyserial—indirect
PyPIpyserial3.1.1indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil—indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.5.3indirect
PyPIpytz—indirect
PyPIpytz2016.7indirect
PyPIpyusb—indirect
PyPIpyusb1.0.0indirect
PyPIqrcode—indirect
PyPIqrcode5.3indirect
PyPIreportlab—indirect
PyPIrequests—indirect
PyPIrequests2.20.0indirect
PyPIsix1.10.0indirect
PyPIvatnumber—indirect
PyPIvatnumber1.2indirect
PyPIvobject—indirect
PyPIvobject0.9.3indirect
PyPIwerkzeug—indirect
PyPIxlrd1.0.0indirect
PyPIxlsxwriter—indirect
PyPIxlsxwriter0.9.3indirect
PyPIxlwt—indirect
PyPIxlwt1.3.*indirect
PyPIzeep—indirect
PyPIzeep3.1.0indirect
Dependency advisories 5

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 30 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 5 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 39 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
babel2.3.4indirecthigh22.9.1
jinja22.10.1indirecthigh103.1.6
mako1.0.4indirecthigh61.3.12
pypdf21.26.0indirectmoderate41.27.9
requests2.20.0indirectmoderate82.33.0

An advisory means the version recorded in the dependency graph falls inside an advisory’s affected range. Reachability is not analysed, and the graph includes development and test pins — a finding may concern tooling rather than shipped software.

Raw JSON report machine-readable

Feedback

Spotted something off in this report, or have thoughts to share? Wrong measurements, missed tooling, ideas, questions — anything is welcome. Every message is read and gets a response.

The message is kept through sign-in.

Scores are signals, not warranties. They reflect publicly visible practices on GitHub — not a code audit, and not a security guarantee.

Missing data is excluded and weights renormalized, never scored as zero. Methodology is versioned and open: metrics v2.10.0, schema v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — PyPI.