[16:22] <blackboxsw> aciba: I think I got your comments on PR 1572
[16:36] <aciba> blackboxsw: approved, thanks!
[17:56] <blackboxsw> https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/1574 merged.  holmanb is https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/1585 ready for review?
[18:00] <holmanb> @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] <blackboxsw> 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] <falcojr> blackboxsw holmanb : I can review that one too
[18:01] <blackboxsw> 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] <falcojr> blackboxsw: I just commented on your other subiquity PR to
[18:02] <blackboxsw> falcojr: thanks on 1592 as well. looks like we'll wrap that up next week
[18:03] <holmanb> @blackboxsw: yep, I'll prioritize that
[18:03] <holmanb> to be clear: prioritize #1581
[18:04] <blackboxsw> 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
[18:05] <blackboxsw> I'll manually drive integration test of both (painful.... takes about 45 mins for me)
[18:06] <blackboxsw> falcojr: which PR?
[18:06] <falcojr> blackboxsw: autoinstall, 1572
[18:06]  * blackboxsw checks github emails as the PRs themselves aren't showing me comments in the UI 
[18:07] <blackboxsw> ahh cloud-init repo not subiquity repo PRs 
[18:07] <falcojr> ahh, sorry
[18:11] <blackboxsw> @falcojr think it's worth augmenting an integration test for passing opaque autoinstall and ensuring the snap is installed?
[18:11] <blackboxsw> just so the live logic of the cc_ubuntu_autoinstall module is exercised (even though it basically noops beyond schema validation)
[18:12] <falcojr> blackboxsw: sure, couldn't hurt
[18:16] <blackboxsw> 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] <falcojr> sounds good
[18:48] <blackboxsw> 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] <blackboxsw> to make sure I don't have to rework the test assertions 
[18:54] <blackboxsw> test needs a snap install subiquity --classic
[19:09] <falcojr> sounds good, I'll take a look
[19:18] <falcojr> blackboxsw: test looks good. Did you see my question about frequency though?
[19:27] <blackboxsw> falcojr: twas missed, thx fixed/pushed.
[19:36] <blackboxsw> 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
[19:42] <blackboxsw> 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
[20:08] <blackboxsw> falcojr: does #1592 really have to land before 1590?
[20:09] <blackboxsw> they don't seem strictly dependent
[20:33] <falcojr> 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] <blackboxsw> 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] <falcojr> blackboxsw: sure, I think that's fine