You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I've been trying to add testcontainers to my employer's CI, so my teammates can run integration tests. At some point, I needed to build a container image based off an existing Dockerfile, but the problem is that I need to specify a target stage to run the container in a test mode, where test dependencies are included.
I found out that buildOptions is omitting the Target field, which is present in the ImageBuildOptions struct. Is there a reason to not expose this field?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hey @danvergara thanks for opening this issue. I've submitted #1931, which implements a mechanism for users to modify the image build options type if needed. That will simplify future additions, as instead of adding multiple methods to the FromDockerfile struct, we simply allow users to define the modifier with the changes, having access to the Docker type.
Of course, this change comes with a breaking change, which is caused by the need of adding a new method to the ImageBuildInfo interface. This is usually undesired, but will serve as preparation of a more stable API.
Proposal
I've been trying to add
testcontainers
to my employer's CI, so my teammates can run integration tests. At some point, I needed to build a container image based off an existingDockerfile
, but the problem is that I need to specify a target stage to run the container in a test mode, where test dependencies are included.I found out that buildOptions is omitting the
Target
field, which is present in the ImageBuildOptions struct. Is there a reason to not expose this field?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: