Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-27 18:54 UTC

testcontainers / testcontainers-rs

A library for integration-testing against docker containers from within Rust.

RustApache-2.0★ 1,124 stars⑂ 196 forkssince Aug 2018View on GitHub ↗

#rust #docker #integration-testing #test-automation #testcontainers #testing #testcontainers-rust

testcontainers/testcontainers-rs holds a health index of 92 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (86/100) and lowest on Security (62/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

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.

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)

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 78 is calibrated to 92 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

TestcontainersOrganization

2,318 followers57 public repossince Jul 2015

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
crates.io	testcontainers	0.28.0	3,978,584	51	21 days ago	docker docker-compose testcontainers

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

83Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

72Good

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 3 days ago
13.8/36	Commit cadence — 20/52 weeks with commits
16.7/18	Commit volume — 71 commits in the last year
6/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 8 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6

Inputs used

commits_last_year	71
human_commit_share	0.65
days_since_last_push	3
active_weeks_last_year	20

Release discipline

100Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 41 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 21 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~27.5 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	41
latest_release_tag	0.28.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	21
mean_days_between_releases	27.5

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Community & Adoption

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

78Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

72Good

How it's scored

49.5/60	Stars — 1,124 stars
19.1/25	Forks — 196 forks
3.3/15	Watchers — 5 watchers

Inputs used

forks	196
stars	1,124
watchers	5
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

70Good

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	3
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

100Exceptional

How it's scored

80/80	Monthly downloads — 3,978,584 downloads/month across crates
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	testcontainers
dependents	—
ecosystems	crates
total_downloads	37,123,899
monthly_downloads	3,978,584
unverified_packages_excluded	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

Sustainability & Governance

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

80Excellent · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

63Moderate

How it's scored

25.2/54	Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14.1/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 38% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 86 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 25 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	2
contributors_sampled	86
top_contributor_share	0.375

Issue & PR responsiveness

84Excellent

How it's scored

39.1/42	Issue resolution — 93% of issues closed
20.1/30	PR acceptance — 487/726 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
13.5/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 9/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9

Inputs used

merged_prs	487
open_issues	16
closed_issues	211
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.93
closed_unmerged_prs	239
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

79Good

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
24.2/25	Owner reach — 2,318 followers of testcontainers
24.8/25	Track record — 57 public repos, account ~11 yr old

Inputs used

followers	2,318
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	testcontainers
public_repos	57
account_age_days	4,058

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on crates
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 21 days ago
20/20	Version history — 51 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	testcontainers
ecosystems	crates
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	21

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

86Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — .rustfmt.toml
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

90Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://rust.testcontainers.org
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 7 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	rust, docker, integration-testing, test-automation, testcontainers, testing, testcontainers-rust
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://rust.testcontainers.org
docs_site	https://rust.testcontainers.org
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

Security

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

62Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

52Moderate

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6.8/7.5	Code-Review — Found 9/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 25 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
4.5/7.5	Maintained — 8 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 18 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	15
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	3
scorecard_aggregate	5.1

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	35
affected_packages	9
assessed_packages	36
unassessed_packages	35
affected_by_severity	high 4, moderate 4, low 1
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 36 resolved dependencies against OSV. 35 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.

69Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 65 of 65 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	1
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

79Good

How it's scored

12.6/18	One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml, testcontainers/Cargo.toml, testimages/no_expose_port/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — .rustfmt.toml
11/11	Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
10/10	Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
4/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 2 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8	Automated maintenance — 21 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	Pipfile.lock
has_dockerfile	yes
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0.02
toolchain_manifests	Cargo.toml, testcontainers/Cargo.toml, testimages/no_expose_port/Cargo.toml, testimages/simple_web_server/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.21

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/61 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Rust
largest_source_bytes	38,976
source_files_sampled	61
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

1,124GitHub stars

86contributors

71commits, last 12 months

3days since last push

41releases

2bus factor

16open issues

crates.io, 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 ★ / 196 ⇿

0Stars

196Forks

41Releases

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.

Major 0Minor 17Patch 22

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.1 / 10

5.1aggregate

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 · 2026-08-27 18:53 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
n/a	Branch-Protection	internal 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
10	CI-Tests	29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
9	Code-Review	Found 9/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
10	Contributors	project has 25 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
6	Maintained	8 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0	Vulnerabilities	18 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 30

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
crates.io	async-trait	`0.1`	testcontainers/Cargo.toml
crates.io	bollard	`0.21.0`	testcontainers/Cargo.toml
crates.io	http	`1.1`	testcontainers/Cargo.toml
crates.io	bytes	`1.6.0`	testcontainers/Cargo.toml
crates.io	conquer-once	`0.4`	testcontainers/Cargo.toml
crates.io	docker-compose-types	`0.24`	testcontainers/Cargo.toml
crates.io	docker_credential	`1.3.1`	testcontainers/Cargo.toml
crates.io	either	`1.12.0`	testcontainers/Cargo.toml
crates.io	etcetera	`0.11.0`	testcontainers/Cargo.toml
crates.io	futures	`0.3`	testcontainers/Cargo.toml
crates.io	itertools	`0.14`	testcontainers/Cargo.toml
crates.io	log	`0.4`	testcontainers/Cargo.toml
crates.io	memchr	`2.7.2`	testcontainers/Cargo.toml
crates.io	parse-display	`0.11.0`	testcontainers/Cargo.toml
crates.io	pin-project-lite	`0.2.14`	testcontainers/Cargo.toml
crates.io	russh	`0.61.2`	testcontainers/Cargo.toml
crates.io	reqwest	`0.13.1`	testcontainers/Cargo.toml
crates.io	serde	`1`	testcontainers/Cargo.toml
crates.io	serde-java-properties	`0.2.0`	testcontainers/Cargo.toml
crates.io	serde_json	`1`	testcontainers/Cargo.toml
crates.io	serde_with	`3.7.0`	testcontainers/Cargo.toml
crates.io	signal-hook	`0.4`	testcontainers/Cargo.toml
crates.io	thiserror	`2.0.3`	testcontainers/Cargo.toml
crates.io	tokio	`1`	testcontainers/Cargo.toml
crates.io	tokio-stream	`0.1.15`	testcontainers/Cargo.toml
crates.io	astral-tokio-tar	`0.6.1`	testcontainers/Cargo.toml
crates.io	tokio-util	`0.7.10`	testcontainers/Cargo.toml
crates.io	ferroid	`2.0.0`	testcontainers/Cargo.toml
crates.io	url	`2`	testcontainers/Cargo.toml
crates.io	uuid	`1.8.0`	testcontainers/Cargo.toml

All dependencies 71

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 30 direct and 41 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
crates.io	astral-tokio-tar	`—`	direct
crates.io	async-trait	`—`	direct
crates.io	bollard	`—`	direct
crates.io	bytes	`—`	direct
crates.io	conquer-once	`—`	direct
crates.io	docker-compose-types	`—`	direct
crates.io	docker_credential	`—`	direct
crates.io	either	`—`	direct
crates.io	etcetera	`—`	direct
crates.io	ferroid	`—`	direct
crates.io	futures	`—`	direct
crates.io	http	`—`	direct
crates.io	itertools	`—`	direct
crates.io	log	`—`	direct
crates.io	memchr	`—`	direct
crates.io	parse-display	`—`	direct
crates.io	pin-project-lite	`—`	direct
crates.io	reqwest	`—`	direct
crates.io	russh	`—`	direct
crates.io	serde	`—`	direct
crates.io	serde-java-properties	`—`	direct
crates.io	serde_json	`—`	direct
crates.io	serde_with	`—`	direct
crates.io	signal-hook	`—`	direct
crates.io	thiserror	`—`	direct
crates.io	tokio	`—`	direct
crates.io	tokio-stream	`—`	direct
crates.io	tokio-util	`—`	direct
crates.io	url	`—`	direct
crates.io	uuid	`—`	direct
crates.io	anyhow	`—`	indirect
crates.io	axum	`—`	indirect
crates.io	pretty_env_logger	`—`	indirect
crates.io	temp-dir	`—`	indirect
crates.io	tempfile	`—`	indirect
PyPI	babel	`2.14.0`	indirect
PyPI	bracex	`2.4`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2024.7.4`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.3.2`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.1.7`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	ghp-import	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.7`	indirect
PyPI	importlib-metadata	`7.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	jinja2	`3.1.5`	indirect
PyPI	markdown	`3.6`	indirect
PyPI	markupsafe	`2.1.5`	indirect
PyPI	mergedeep	`1.3.4`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs	`1.5.3`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-codeinclude-plugin	`0.2.1`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-include-markdown-plugin	`6.0.4`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-markdownextradata-plugin	`0.2.5`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-material	`9.5.18`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-material-extensions	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`24.0`	indirect
PyPI	paginate	`0.5.6`	indirect
PyPI	pathspec	`0.12.1`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.2.1`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.17.2`	indirect
PyPI	pymdown-extensions	`10.8.1`	indirect
PyPI	python-dateutil	`2.9.0.post0`	indirect
PyPI	pytz	`2024.1`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml-env-tag	`0.1`	indirect
PyPI	regex	`2024.4.28`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`2.32.0`	indirect
PyPI	six	`1.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.2.2`	indirect
PyPI	watchdog	`4.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	wcmatch	`8.5`	indirect
PyPI	zipp	`3.19.1`	indirect

Dependency advisories 9

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 36 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 9 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 35 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
click	`8.1.7`	indirect	high	1	`8.3.3`
markdown	`3.6`	indirect	high	2	`3.8.1`
pymdown-extensions	`10.8.1`	indirect	high	8	`11.0.1`
urllib3	`2.2.2`	indirect	high	12	`2.7.0`
idna	`3.7`	indirect	moderate	2	`3.15`
jinja2	`3.1.5`	indirect	moderate	2	`3.1.6`
mkdocs-include-markdown-plugin	`6.0.4`	indirect	moderate	2	`7.1.8`
requests	`2.32.0`	indirect	moderate	4	`2.33.0`
pygments	`2.17.2`	indirect	low	2	`2.20.0`

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.

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 — crates.io.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records