add withRemove() and tests

[digital88]

Related issue #850

Add withRemove() method to GenericContainer and tests. This allows to control autoremoval behaviour of a container.

Containers are removed by default if remove option is not set when container is being stopped.

await container.stop(); // will remove stopped container.

withRemove(true) produces the same effect as explicitly setting remove flag when stopping container.

container.withRemove(true).start();
...
await container.stop();

// is equivalent of doing:

await container.stop({ remove: true });

// is equivalent of doing:

await container.stop();

withRemove(false) disables removing container by default.

container.withRemove(false).start();
...
await container.stop(); // will NOT remove stopped container.

container.stop() options have higher priority than withRemove()

container.withRemove(false).start();
...
await container.stop({ remove: true }); // will override withRemove(false) and remove stopped container.

Keep in mind that Ryuk will remove stopped container after tests finished regardless of value passed in withRemove method, unless Ryuk is disabled. Setting withRemove(false) and disabling Ryuk is not recommeded.

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for testcontainers-node ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	6465ab0
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/testcontainers-node/deploys/67d8954f9d245500077e14d6
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-936--testcontainers-node.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[cristianrgreco]

Hi @digital88, thanks for raising the PR, but it is very similar to #905. The other PR is a bit further progressed, e.g it updates the docs, and the testcontainer interface. It looks like both PRs are now failing for the same reason, some difference with the container name.

Instead of asserting the container name does or does not exist, is it not possible to assert the container IDs? That should resolve any inconsistency with whether the name is prefixed with / or not.

Would it be possible for you to collaborate on PR #905 instead of creating a new one?

[digital88]

Would it be possible for you to collaborate on PR #905 instead of creating a new one?

Yes, I'll look into it.

Instead of asserting the container name does or does not exist, is it not possible to assert the container IDs?

Yes, I was thinking about using container id too. Will try this idea in PR #905

[digital88]

See #939