neo4j:4.4.16-enterprise Docker image fails when apoc plugin is requested

[madisonscott]

Steps to reproduce

Start a Docker container as such:

docker pull neo4j:4.4.16-enterprise
docker run  --env NEO4J_ACCEPT_LICENSE_AGREEMENT=yes --env NEO4JLABS_PLUGINS='["apoc"]' neo4j:4.4.16-enterprise bash

Expected behaviour

The container runs

Actual behaviour

The following error occurs:

Fetching versions.json for Plugin 'apoc' from https://github.com/neo4j/apoc/blob/master/versions.json
parse error: Invalid numeric literal at line 8, column 10
Error: No jar URL found for version '4.4.16' in versions.json from 'https://github.com/neo4j/apoc/blob/master/versions.json'

Neo4j image tag being used

neo4j:4.4.16-enterprise

Additional context

• Using the image neo4j:4.4.15-enterprise works
• Diffing the following two files shows changes to the configs for apoc and apoc-core (possibly related to this commit):

  
  *** 4.4.15/enterprise/local-package/neo4jlabs-plugins.json      2022-12-22 14:53:32.422606300 -0500
  --- 4.4.16/enterprise/local-package/neo4jlabs-plugins.json      2022-12-22 14:53:32.440818400 -0500
  ***************
  *** 1,12 ****
  {
  "apoc": {
  !     "versions": "https://neo4j-contrib.github.io/neo4j-apoc-procedures/versions.json",
    "properties": {
      "dbms.security.procedures.unrestricted": "apoc.*"
    }
  },
  "apoc-core": {
    "location": "/var/lib/neo4j/labs/apoc-*-core.jar",
    "properties": {
      "dbms.security.procedures.unrestricted": "apoc.*"
    }
  --- 1,13 ----
  {
  "apoc": {
  !     "versions": "https://github.com/neo4j/apoc/blob/master/versions.json",
    "properties": {
      "dbms.security.procedures.unrestricted": "apoc.*"
    }
  },
  "apoc-core": {
    "location": "/var/lib/neo4j/labs/apoc-*-core.jar",

• "versions": "https://github.com/neo4j/apoc/blob/master/versions.json", "properties": { "dbms.security.procedures.unrestricted": "apoc.*" }

cc @dennisjlee

[AzuObs]

Thank you for reporting Thordal,

I'm considering this a duplicate of https://github.com/neo4j/apoc/issues/271 and closing it for now, if that's OK with you. I would like to consolidate discussions around the issue to a single place.