[16:22] aciba: I think I got your comments on PR 1572 [16:36] blackboxsw: approved, thanks! [17:56] https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/1574 merged. holmanb is https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/1585 ready for review? [17:56] Pull 1574 in canonical/cloud-init "sources/azure: refactor chassis asset tag handling" [Merged] [17:56] Pull 1585 in canonical/cloud-init "Add btrfs and lvm support to lxd storage options (SC-1026)" [Open] [18:00] @blackboxsw: yes I believe so. Unit test coverage now includes package install, command used, and additionally the get_package function coverage per requests. Integration tests planned to be a separate PR. [18:01] thanks holmanb: on it and that works for me. integration tests there will be significantly "bigger". Also, will there by time to review https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/1581 today? If we have closure on that from cloud-init it'll unblock the subiquity-related PR that'll stuff a run-parts script in that directory. [18:01] Pull 1581 in canonical/cloud-init "UC015.U1.1 clean: allow third party cleanup scripts in /etc/cloud/clean.d" [Open] [18:01] blackboxsw holmanb : I can review that one too [18:01] what's holding up the subiquity-part is just confirmation about whether we think /etc/cloud/clean.d is the directory we want to use for this. (or somewhere else) [18:02] blackboxsw: I just commented on your other subiquity PR to [18:02] falcojr: thanks on 1592 as well. looks like we'll wrap that up next week [18:03] @blackboxsw: yep, I'll prioritize that [18:03] to be clear: prioritize #1581 [18:04] holmanb: great. looks like Dan is good from subiquity side for the related PR to 1581 https://github.com/canonical/subiquity/pull/1347#issuecomment-1185757100 [18:04] Pull 1347 in canonical/subiquity "cloud_init_files: render a clean script to /etc/cloud/clean.d" [Open] [18:05] I'll manually drive integration test of both (painful.... takes about 45 mins for me) [18:06] falcojr: which PR? [18:06] blackboxsw: autoinstall, 1572 [18:06] * blackboxsw checks github emails as the PRs themselves aren't showing me comments in the UI [18:07] ahh cloud-init repo not subiquity repo PRs [18:07] ahh, sorry [18:11] @falcojr think it's worth augmenting an integration test for passing opaque autoinstall and ensuring the snap is installed? [18:11] just so the live logic of the cc_ubuntu_autoinstall module is exercised (even though it basically noops beyond schema validation) [18:12] blackboxsw: sure, couldn't hurt [18:16] a bit of extra time. maybe we'd hit snap install timeout issues... but looks like we aready snap install hello-world in test_combined. I'll just add subiquity/autoinstall checks there too [18:16] sounds good [18:48] falcojr: integration test up. I can't add it to test_combined.py because that is a test_common tests are broad than ubuntu.... so I don't want to dump ubuntu_autoinstall tests into that too. I'm waiting on integration test results in azure now [18:49] to make sure I don't have to rework the test assertions [18:54] test needs a snap install subiquity --classic [19:09] sounds good, I'll take a look [19:18] blackboxsw: test looks good. Did you see my question about frequency though? [19:27] falcojr: twas missed, thx fixed/pushed. [19:36] falcojr: going through https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/1590/files now nice use of features. that'll make things simpler for downstream pkging [19:36] Pull 1590 in canonical/cloud-init "cc_set_passwords fixes (SC-1183)" [Open] [19:42] holmanb: +1 on https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/1585 for you with or without that nit integration test suggestion. I tested both lvm and btrfs storage_backends and both don't fail. But since you are working a specific integration test separately, maybe no need to touch 1585. You're call to merge or update/merge [19:42] Pull 1585 in canonical/cloud-init "Add btrfs and lvm support to lxd storage options (SC-1026)" [Open] [20:08] falcojr: does #1592 really have to land before 1590? [20:09] they don't seem strictly dependent [20:33] blackboxsw: no, I suppose not...but I thought I could use 1590 to fix whatever else might need to be fixed if 1592 doesn't work [20:35] falcojr: makes sense, content/behavior looks good to me on 1590. I was wondering if it's worth moving forward on 1590 and sorting any missing issues in 1592 or whatever needs to follow if the hashed_passwd approach doesn't resolve things. [20:49] blackboxsw: sure, I think that's fine