Public record
Software health reportschema 0.27.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-01 03:41 UTC

OCA / OpenUpgrade

Open source upgrade path for Odoo/OpenERP

Python · HTMLAGPL-3.0★ 969 stars⑂ 820 forkssince May 2014View on GitHub ↗

OCA/OpenUpgrade holds a health index of 90 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. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

90
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.

90
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 76 is calibrated to 90 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

4,861 followers263 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-OpenUpgrade16.0.20230324.0951224 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 recencylast push 0 days ago
27/36Commit cadence39/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume506 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 8 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year506
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year39
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases1 releases published
0/36Release recencylatest release 3,223 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencecadence unknown (single release)
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count1
latest_release_tagdatabases
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release3,223
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
48.4/60Stars969 stars
24.3/25Forks820 forks
11.5/15Watchers120 watchers
Inputs used
forks820
stars969
watchers120
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized 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_badges
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

81Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
16/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 29% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth27 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 14 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled27
top_contributor_share0.29
How it's scored
39.9/42Issue resolution95% of issues closed
26.1/30PR acceptance4,207/4,827 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 4/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs4,207
open_issues46
closed_issues886
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.951
closed_unmerged_prs620
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
25/25Owner reach4,861 followers of OCA
25/25Track record263 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers4,861
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginOCA
public_repos263
account_age_days4,459
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on pypi
4/35Publish recencylatest publish 1,224 days ago
20/20Version history5 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesodoo-addons-oca-OpenUpgrade
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1,224

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

100Exceptional
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows10 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-Tests16 out of 16 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 sitehttps://oca.github.io/OpenUpgrade/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics7 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?

60Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests16 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-ReviewFound 4/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 14 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 8 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5
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 advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno 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 instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
22.9/40Legible commit history43 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.43
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 practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency 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 codePython without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/170 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes7,389
source_files_sampled170
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

969GitHub stars
27contributors
506commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
1releases
3bus factor
46open 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 ★ / 820 ⇿
0Stars
820Forks
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.

0200400600800763142014-052020-062026-07
Major 0Minor 0Patch 0

Each point covers 12 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.0 / 10
5.0aggregate

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 · 2026-08-01 03:41 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-Tests16 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 4/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10Contributorsproject has 14 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-frameworkdirect
PyPIodoo-addon-openupgrade-scriptsdirect
PyPIbabelindirect
PyPIbabel2.3.4indirect
PyPIdecoratorindirect
PyPIdecorator4.0.10indirect
PyPIdocutilsindirect
PyPIdocutils0.12indirect
PyPIebaysdk2.1.4indirect
PyPIfeedparserindirect
PyPIfeedparser5.2.1indirect
PyPIgeventindirect
PyPIgreenletindirect
PyPIhtml2textindirect
PyPIhtml2text2016.9.19indirect
PyPIjinja2indirect
PyPIjinja22.10.1indirect
PyPIlibsassindirect
PyPIlxmlindirect
PyPImakoindirect
PyPImako1.0.4indirect
PyPImarkupsafe0.23indirect
PyPImockindirect
PyPImock2.0.0indirect
PyPInum2words0.5.4indirect
PyPIodoorpc0.7.0indirect
PyPIofxparseindirect
PyPIofxparse0.16indirect
PyPIopenupgradelibindirect
PyPIpasslibindirect
PyPIpasslib1.6.5indirect
PyPIpillowindirect
PyPIpolibindirect
PyPIpsutilindirect
PyPIpsycopg2indirect
PyPIpsycopg22.7.1indirect
PyPIpydotindirect
PyPIpydot1.2.3indirect
PyPIpygithubindirect
PyPIpyparsingindirect
PyPIpyparsing2.1.10indirect
PyPIpypdf2indirect
PyPIpypdf21.26.0indirect
PyPIpyserialindirect
PyPIpyserial3.1.1indirect
PyPIpython-dateutilindirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.5.3indirect
PyPIpytzindirect
PyPIpytz2016.7indirect
PyPIpyusbindirect
PyPIpyusb1.0.0indirect
PyPIqrcodeindirect
PyPIqrcode5.3indirect
PyPIreportlabindirect
PyPIrequestsindirect
PyPIrequests2.20.0indirect
PyPIsix1.10.0indirect
PyPIvatnumberindirect
PyPIvatnumber1.2indirect
PyPIvobjectindirect
PyPIvobject0.9.3indirect
PyPIwerkzeugindirect
PyPIxlrd1.0.0indirect
PyPIxlsxwriterindirect
PyPIxlsxwriter0.9.3indirect
PyPIxlwtindirect
PyPIxlwt1.3.*indirect
PyPIzeepindirect
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 v0.27.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsPyPI.