ruview-home-sensing

Projects that follow the best practices below can voluntarily self-certify and show that they've achieved an Open Source Security Foundation (OpenSSF) best practices badge.

There is no set of practices that can guarantee that software will never have defects or vulnerabilities; even formal methods can fail if the specifications or assumptions are wrong. Nor is there any set of practices that can guarantee that a project will sustain a healthy and well-functioning development community. However, following best practices can help improve the results of projects. For example, some practices enable multi-person review before release, which can both help find otherwise hard-to-find technical vulnerabilities and help build trust and a desire for repeated interaction among developers from different companies. To earn a badge, all MUST and MUST NOT criteria must be met, all SHOULD criteria must be met OR be unmet with justification, and all SUGGESTED criteria must be met OR unmet (we want them considered at least). If you want to enter justification text as a generic comment, instead of being a rationale that the situation is acceptable, start the text block with '//' followed by a space. Feedback is welcome via the GitHub site as issues or pull requests There is also a mailing list for general discussion.

We gladly provide the information in several locales, however, if there is any conflict or inconsistency between the translations, the English version is the authoritative version.
If this is your project, please show your badge status on your project page! The badge status looks like this: Badge level for project 15634 is in_progress Here is how to embed it:
You can show your badge status by embedding this in your markdown file:
[![OpenSSF Best Practices](https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/15634/badge)](https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/15634)
or by embedding this in your HTML:
<a href="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/15634"><img src="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/15634/badge"></a>


These are the Passing level criteria. You can also view the Silver or Gold level criteria.

Baseline Series: Baseline Level 1 Baseline Level 2 Baseline Level 3

        

 Basics 12/13 ●

 Change Control 9/9 ●

  • Public version-controlled source repository


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST have a version-controlled source repository that is publicly readable and has a URL. [repo_public]
    The URL MAY be the same as the project URL. The project MAY use private (non-public) branches in specific cases while the change is not publicly released (e.g., for fixing a vulnerability before it is revealed to the public).

    The software source is publicly readable in the default main branch after PR 1 merged at commit 3afc395637abd854f7300e96d62512af7975ab0b. The tagged initial prerelease remains separately available. Evidence: https://github.com/ha-homelab/ruview-home-sensing/tree/3afc395637abd854f7300e96d62512af7975ab0b ; https://github.com/ha-homelab/ruview-home-sensing/pull/1 ; https://github.com/ha-homelab/ruview-home-sensing/releases/tag/v0.4.0-rc.1


    Enough for a badge!

    The project's source repository MUST track what changes were made, who made the changes, and when the changes were made. [repo_track]

    The public Git repository records the source changes and review commits. This assessment uses only its public change record. Evidence: https://github.com/ha-homelab/ruview-home-sensing/commits/d71f09cdc6948fb131c247ae51a2ada1af27a942 ; https://github.com/ha-homelab/ruview-home-sensing/pull/1/commits


    Enough for a badge!

    To enable collaborative review, the project's source repository MUST include interim versions for review between releases; it MUST NOT include only final releases. [repo_interim]
    Projects MAY choose to omit specific interim versions from their public source repositories (e.g., ones that fix specific non-public security vulnerabilities, may never be publicly released, or include material that cannot be legally posted and are not in the final release).

    Interim source revisions are publicly available as Git commits and pull requests. The initial public source PR has merged, and its resulting main-branch commit is publicly readable. Evidence: https://github.com/ha-homelab/ruview-home-sensing/commits/3afc395637abd854f7300e96d62512af7975ab0b ; https://github.com/ha-homelab/ruview-home-sensing/tree/3afc395637abd854f7300e96d62512af7975ab0b ; https://github.com/ha-homelab/ruview-home-sensing/pull/1


    Enough for a badge!

    It is SUGGESTED that common distributed version control software be used (e.g., git) for the project's source repository. [repo_distributed]
    Git is not specifically required and projects can use centralized version control software (such as subversion) with justification.

    The project uses a public Git repository, a distributed version-control system. Evidence: https://github.com/ha-homelab/ruview-home-sensing/tree/d71f09cdc6948fb131c247ae51a2ada1af27a942


  • Unique version numbering


    Enough for a badge!

    The project results MUST have a unique version identifier for each release intended to be used by users. [version_unique]
    This MAY be met in a variety of ways including a commit IDs (such as git commit id or mercurial changeset id) or a version number (including version numbers that use semantic versioning or date-based schemes like YYYYMMDD).

    The initial prerelease v0.4.0-rc.1 has a unique Git tag resolving to commit d71f09cdc6948fb131c247ae51a2ada1af27a942. The version file uses 0.4.0-rc.1 and Python metadata uses the corresponding 0.4.0rc1 spelling. The published source archive manifest identifies its exact source commit. Evidence: https://github.com/ha-homelab/ruview-home-sensing/releases/tag/v0.4.0-rc.1 ; https://github.com/ha-homelab/ruview-home-sensing/blob/d71f09cdc6948fb131c247ae51a2ada1af27a942/version ; https://github.com/ha-homelab/ruview-home-sensing/blob/d71f09cdc6948fb131c247ae51a2ada1af27a942/pyproject.toml


    Enough for a badge!

    It is SUGGESTED that the Semantic Versioning (SemVer) or Calendar Versioning (CalVer) version numbering format be used for releases. It is SUGGESTED that those who use CalVer include a micro level value. [version_semver]
    Projects should generally prefer whatever format is expected by their users, e.g., because it is the normal format used by their ecosystem. Many ecosystems prefer SemVer, and SemVer is generally preferred for application programmer interfaces (APIs) and software development kits (SDKs). CalVer tends to be used by projects that are large, have an unusually large number of independently-developed dependencies, have a constantly-changing scope, or are time-sensitive. It is SUGGESTED that those who use CalVer include a micro level value, because including a micro level supports simultaneously-maintained branches whenever that becomes necessary. Other version numbering formats may be used as version numbers, including git commit IDs or mercurial changeset IDs, as long as they uniquely identify versions. However, some alternatives (such as git commit IDs) can cause problems as release identifiers, because users may not be able to easily determine if they are up-to-date. The version ID format may be unimportant for identifying software releases if all recipients only run the latest version (e.g., it is the code for a single website or internet service that is constantly updated via continuous delivery).

    The source version follows the SemVer prerelease form 0.4.0-rc.1. Python packaging uses its ecosystem-compatible 0.4.0rc1 representation. Evidence: https://github.com/ha-homelab/ruview-home-sensing/blob/d71f09cdc6948fb131c247ae51a2ada1af27a942/version ; https://github.com/ha-homelab/ruview-home-sensing/blob/d71f09cdc6948fb131c247ae51a2ada1af27a942/pyproject.toml


    Enough for a badge!

    It is SUGGESTED that projects identify each release within their version control system. For example, it is SUGGESTED that those using git identify each release using git tags. [version_tags]

    The published initial prerelease v0.4.0-rc.1 is identified by the Git tag of the same name, which resolves to source commit d71f09cdc6948fb131c247ae51a2ada1af27a942. The prerelease tag remains immutable and distinct from the later main-branch merge; no stable release is claimed. Evidence: https://github.com/ha-homelab/ruview-home-sensing/releases/tag/v0.4.0-rc.1 ; https://github.com/ha-homelab/ruview-home-sensing/tree/v0.4.0-rc.1


  • Release notes


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST provide, in each release, release notes that are a human-readable summary of major changes in that release to help users determine if they should upgrade and what the upgrade impact will be. The release notes MUST NOT be the raw output of a version control log (e.g., the "git log" command results are not release notes). Projects whose results are not intended for reuse in multiple locations (such as the software for a single website or service) AND employ continuous delivery MAY select "N/A". (URL required) [release_notes]
    The release notes MAY be implemented in a variety of ways. Many projects provide them in a file named "NEWS", "CHANGELOG", or "ChangeLog", optionally with extensions such as ".txt", ".md", or ".html". Historically the term "change log" meant a log of every change, but to meet these criteria what is needed is a human-readable summary. The release notes MAY instead be provided by version control system mechanisms such as the GitHub Releases workflow.

    The sole published release, v0.4.0-rc.1, includes human-readable notes explaining the initial software components, separate bridge dependency, the source archive and wheel, compatibility and installation-policy requirements, security fixes, and experimental limitations. The notes link the exact source and validation run and explicitly do not claim stable promotion, deployment, a Passing badge or physical-device qualification. Evidence: https://github.com/ha-homelab/ruview-home-sensing/releases/tag/v0.4.0-rc.1 ; https://github.com/ha-homelab/ruview-home-sensing/blob/d71f09cdc6948fb131c247ae51a2ada1af27a942/docs/distribution.md


    Enough for a badge!

    The release notes MUST identify every publicly known run-time vulnerability fixed in this release that already had a CVE assignment or similar when the release was created. This criterion may be marked as not applicable (N/A) if users typically cannot practically update the software themselves (e.g., as is often true for kernel updates). This criterion applies only to the project results, not to its dependencies. If there are no release notes or there have been no publicly known vulnerabilities, choose N/A. [release_notes_vulns]
    This criterion helps users determine if a given update will fix a vulnerability that is publicly known, to help users make an informed decision about updating. If users typically cannot practically update the software themselves on their computers, but must instead depend on one or more intermediaries to perform the update (as is often the case for a kernel and low-level software that is intertwined with a kernel), the project may choose "not applicable" (N/A) instead, since this additional information will not be helpful to those users. Similarly, a project may choose N/A if all recipients only run the latest version (e.g., it is the code for a single website or internet service that is constantly updated via continuous delivery). This criterion only applies to the project results, not its dependencies. Listing the vulnerabilities of all transitive dependencies of a project becomes unwieldy as dependencies increase and vary, and is unnecessary since tools that examine and track dependencies can do this in a more scalable way.

    No qualifying publicly known project-runtime vulnerability with a CVE or equivalent assignment has been identified for this initial prerelease. Its notes nevertheless describe the project security fixes. CVE-2026-59890 / GHSA-h35f-9h28-mq5c, also discussed in the notes, concerns the external setuptools build dependency and is outside this criterion's project-results scope. Reassess when a release fixes a qualifying assigned project vulnerability. Evidence: https://github.com/ha-homelab/ruview-home-sensing/releases/tag/v0.4.0-rc.1 ; https://github.com/ha-homelab/ruview-home-sensing/security/advisories


 Reporting 8/8 ●

  • Bug-reporting process


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST provide a process for users to submit bug reports (e.g., using an issue tracker or a mailing list). (URL required) [report_process]

    CONTRIBUTING asks reporters to open an issue with observed behavior, expected results and a minimal fictional reproduction. The public repository has an enabled issue tracker. Evidence: https://github.com/ha-homelab/ruview-home-sensing/blob/d71f09cdc6948fb131c247ae51a2ada1af27a942/CONTRIBUTING.md ; https://github.com/ha-homelab/ruview-home-sensing/issues


    Enough for a badge!

    The project SHOULD use an issue tracker for tracking individual issues. [report_tracker]

    The project uses an enabled public GitHub issue tracker for individual reports. Evidence: https://github.com/ha-homelab/ruview-home-sensing/issues


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST acknowledge a majority of bug reports submitted in the last 2-12 months (inclusive); the response need not include a fix. [report_responses]

    The maintainer reports no qualifying external bug reports during the assessment period. The newly created public tracker currently contains no bug issues. This is a no-report assessment, not an invented response record. Evidence: https://github.com/ha-homelab/ruview-home-sensing/issues


    Enough for a badge!

    The project SHOULD respond to a majority (>50%) of enhancement requests in the last 2-12 months (inclusive). [enhancement_responses]
    The response MAY be 'no' or a discussion about its merits. The goal is simply that there be some response to some requests, which indicates that the project is still alive. For purposes of this criterion, projects need not count fake requests (e.g., from spammers or automated systems). If a project is no longer making enhancements, please select "unmet" and include the URL that makes this situation clear to users. If a project tends to be overwhelmed by the number of enhancement requests, please select "unmet" and explain.

    The maintainer reports no qualifying external enhancement requests during the assessment period. The newly created public tracker currently contains no enhancement issues. Evidence: https://github.com/ha-homelab/ruview-home-sensing/issues


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST have a publicly available archive for reports and responses for later searching. (URL required) [report_archive]

    GitHub provides a public searchable archive of open and closed issues and their responses; the initial pull-request discussion is also publicly retained. Evidence: https://github.com/ha-homelab/ruview-home-sensing/issues?q=is%3Aissue ; https://github.com/ha-homelab/ruview-home-sensing/pull/1


  • Vulnerability report process


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST publish the process for reporting vulnerabilities on the project site. (URL required) [vulnerability_report_process]
    Projects hosted on GitHub SHOULD consider enabling privately reporting a security vulnerability. Projects on GitLab SHOULD consider using its ability for privately reporting a vulnerability. Projects MAY identify a mailing address on https://PROJECTSITE/security, often in the form security@example.org. This vulnerability reporting process MAY be the same as its bug reporting process. Vulnerability reports MAY always be public, but many projects have a private vulnerability reporting mechanism.

    SECURITY explains the confidential reporting route, requested reproduction information and handling boundaries. GitHub private vulnerability reporting is enabled for this repository. Evidence: https://github.com/ha-homelab/ruview-home-sensing/blob/d71f09cdc6948fb131c247ae51a2ada1af27a942/SECURITY.md ; https://github.com/ha-homelab/ruview-home-sensing/security/advisories/new


    Enough for a badge!

    If private vulnerability reports are supported, the project MUST include how to send the information in a way that is kept private. (URL required) [vulnerability_report_private]
    Examples include a private defect report submitted on the web using HTTPS (TLS) or an email encrypted using OpenPGP. If vulnerability reports are always public (so there are never private vulnerability reports), choose "not applicable" (N/A).

    The enabled GitHub private vulnerability-reporting form is the documented confidential intake. Reporters are told not to publish credentials or sensitive reproduction data in a public issue. Evidence: https://github.com/ha-homelab/ruview-home-sensing/blob/d71f09cdc6948fb131c247ae51a2ada1af27a942/SECURITY.md ; https://github.com/ha-homelab/ruview-home-sensing/security/advisories/new


    Enough for a badge!

    The project's initial response time for any vulnerability report received in the last 6 months MUST be less than or equal to 14 days. [vulnerability_report_response]
    If there have been no vulnerabilities reported in the last 6 months, choose "not applicable" (N/A).

    The maintainer reports no vulnerability reports in the preceding six months. This no-report applicability assessment does not assert a demonstrated response-time record. Evidence: https://github.com/ha-homelab/ruview-home-sensing/blob/d71f09cdc6948fb131c247ae51a2ada1af27a942/SECURITY.md


 Quality 8/13 ●

 Security 5/16 ●

 Analysis 8/8 ●


You can use tools and AI systems to propose changes via a simple URL, such as https://www.bestpractices.dev/en/projects/15634/choose/edit?osps_ac_01_01_status=Met&osps_ac_01_01_justification=GitHub+enforced. See our automation proposals system for how to do that. This data is available under the Community Data License Agreement – Permissive, Version 2.0 (CDLA-Permissive-2.0). This means that a Data Recipient may share the Data, with or without modifications, so long as the Data Recipient makes available the text of this agreement with the shared Data. Please credit alvit and the OpenSSF Best Practices badge contributors.

Project badge entry owned by: alvit.
Entry created on 2026-10-17 23:08:53 UTC, last updated on 2026-10-18 00:10:48 UTC.