feat: Add Neo4j Enterprise Edition support (WithEnterpriseEdition(bool))

[Sossenbinder]

What does this PR do?

See #1261

• Added small QoL method to support Neo4j enterprise
• Added validation to throw when enterprise is requested without the correct license agreement environment variable
• Added tests for enterprise & configuration changes
• Changed existing test to use IAsyncDisposable instead of sync-over-async disposal

Why is it important?

Purely QoL, there are no immediate functional benefits.

Related issues

• Closes [Enhancement]: Support Neo4J Enterprise #1261

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for testcontainers-dotnet ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	c80e830
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/testcontainers-dotnet/deploys/66fecbe26f73b000091e107a
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-1269--testcontainers-dotnet.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.

[HofmeisterAn]

I made some minor adjustments and organized the using statements. Additionally, I changed the member to WithEnterpriseEdition(bool). I still expect developers to agree to the license, as we cannot do that for them. I would like to add the new member to the documentation as well; then I am happy to merge it. LMKWYT. Thanks for the PR!

[Sossenbinder]

I made some minor adjustments and organized the using statements. Additionally, I changed the member to WithEnterpriseEdition(bool). I still expect developers to agree to the license, as we cannot do that for them. I would like to add the new member to the documentation as well; then I am happy to merge it. LMKWYT. Thanks for the PR!

Sounds perfectly fine to me 👍 I'm happy to adhere to the repo standards modified from your side, so this works for me.

Thanks for applying them, this is probably something I missed while working on the very niche code section required for my changes 😄

[HofmeisterAn]

There are two small things I would like to mention:

• Java uses a slightly different approach to handle license agreements for images. Specifically, they use LicenseAcceptance, which reads accepted license agreements for images from a file. Perhaps we can consider adopting a similar mechanism in the future to support the same approach across all modules.

• The current implementation has a minor flaw. If someone wants to use a different version of Neo4j (pin a version), they need to use the builder methods in the correct order. This will fall back to the default image version (not something we want):

  _ = new Neo4jBuilder().WithImage("neo4j:5.23-enterprise").WithEnterpriseEdition(true).Build();

  I haven’t looked into the Java implementation, so I’m not sure if they encounter a similar issue. My initial thought is that we could change the image version only if it’s not already an enterprise version. Additionally, it might make sense to just append the -enterprise tag?

[Sossenbinder]

There are two small things I would like to mention:

• Java uses a slightly different approach to handle license agreements for images. Specifically, they use LicenseAcceptance, which reads accepted license agreements for images from a file. Perhaps we can consider adopting a similar mechanism in the future to support the same approach across all modules.

• The current implementation has a minor flaw. If someone wants to use a different version of Neo4j (pin a version), they need to use the builder methods in the correct order. This will fall back to the default image version (not something we want):

  _ = new Neo4jBuilder().WithImage("neo4j:5.23-enterprise").WithEnterpriseEdition(true).Build();

  I haven’t looked into the Java implementation, so I’m not sure if they encounter a similar issue. My initial thought is that we could change the image version only if it’s not already an enterprise version. Additionally, it might make sense to just append the -enterprise tag?

That's a fair point. I saw the Java implementation as well, but kind of skipped the file based agreement for now. It feels like that's more of a Java ecosystem style, at least it felt pretty unfamiliar from other nuget packages I used in the dotnet space, so I would agree we might want to add this for the sake of consistency. But probably not an immediate requirement.

Ah, I agree on the second point. I'm on vacation right now, so I can take this over once I'm back next week 👍

[HofmeisterAn]

Ah, I agree on the second point. I'm on vacation right now, so I can take this over once I'm back next week 👍

No rush. I might find some time to add it in the meantime. Have a nice vacation 🌞.

[Sossenbinder]

Nice work! That seems pretty extensive now, I think this should do it for all cases.

[HofmeisterAn]

Nice work! That seems pretty extensive now, I think this should do it for all cases.

I had some time this afternoon to think about it, but I bet there are still a few edge cases that aren’t covered. However, it should definitely work for most cases, though. If you're okay with it, I’m happy to go ahead and merge it. Thanks for the PR!

[Sossenbinder]

Sure, go ahead, that works for me 👍Thanks