feat: platform config passing through ImageExt trait

[mominul]

Alternative approach to #800 #837

I think this approach gives more flexibility API-wise. I am happy to add tests if the maintainers think this is a more suitable approach.

Fixes #500, #718

Thanks in advance!

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for testcontainers-rust ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	e0ad768
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/testcontainers-rust/deploys/68ffc8e0164bda000894de70
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-838--testcontainers-rust.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 project configuration.

[DDtKey]

Hi @mominul 👋

Thanks for the contribution!

I think we may want to have both, but platform detection relying on default Docker's methods (DOCKER_DEFAULT_PLATFORM) looks like useful and needed feature.
As it's typical use-case for users and run the same code on different platforms (e.g developer with Apple Silicon, CI on linux + amd64 and etc)

Exposing a way to configure platform from the code looks reasonable as well, but it's more like addition, not a replacement of #800 & #837

What do you think about co-existence of both approaches? (with the following priory: explicitly configured in the code > auto-detection > fallback)

[mominul]

@DDtKey That would be great! I have rebased my changes upon #800 & #837 Can you have a look if you are okay with it? The CI failures are unrelated to these changes I think.

[DDtKey]

It looks good to me and provides enough of flexibility to users! 🚀

Thanks for the contribution!

@mervyn-mccreight WDYT?
It follows my suggestion above with the following priority:

• explicit config from code (this PR)
• auto-detected platform
• fallback to default

[mominul]

Friendly ping ✋

Is anything remaining from my end?