Return a Reader from the Exec function

[johanoskarsson]

This should allow the user to read the logs of the command execution. I've tested this quickly locally and it seems to work as expected.
Pushing this so I can get some CI feedback.
I believe this is similar to what was asked for in #126

[johanoskarsson]

Thanks I had them the wrong way around first!

[mdelapenya]

Hey @johanoskarsson, I took a look at your PR and it seems it’s outdated (created before the commit that fixed the netlify deployment in main):

This branch is 2 commits ahead, 13 commits behind testcontainers/testcontainers-go:main

Could you rebase and push? Thank you in advance for your work here

[mdelapenya]

LGTM! Let's wait for the CI

Thanks

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #435 (ca89845) into main (cd84bb3) will increase coverage by 0.14%.
The diff coverage is 61.53%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #435      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   65.13%   65.28%   +0.14%     
==========================================
  Files          19       19              
  Lines        1179     1184       +5     
==========================================
+ Hits          768      773       +5     
  Misses        304      304              
  Partials      107      107              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
container.go	87.23% <ø> (ø)
wait/wait.go	100.00% <ø> (ø)
docker.go	65.57% <54.54%> (+0.31%)	⬆️
wait/exec.go	92.00% <100.00%> (ø)
wait/host_port.go	56.14% <100.00%> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update cd84bb3...ca89845. Read the comment docs.

[mdelapenya]

NIT: before merging this, could you add a test (or an assertion in the existing tests) where we are consuming the Reader? I'm checking that we are always omitting it in the current tests, and would like to see it covered.

[mdelapenya]

BTW, I'm tagging this PR as breaking-change because we are changing the signature of an exposed method. Because we are not in 1.0.0, it's fine to break it :)