feat: Add response-cache plugin #3061
Merged
johnlanni merged 7 commits intoalibaba:mainfrom Dec 26, 2025
Merged
Conversation
…update Go module version, and enhance README documentation. Add comprehensive tests for cache key extraction from headers and bodies, ensuring proper handling of various configurations. Change-Id: I3c6ee39de0211533931afec3f559603aa7407ecf Co-developed-by: Cursor <noreply@cursor.com>
Jing-ze
requested review from
CH3CHO,
erasernoob,
johnlanni and
rinfx
as code owners
新增响应缓存插件功能及完善测试覆盖变更概述
变更文件
💡 小贴士与 lingma-agents 交流的方式📜 直接回复评论
📜 在代码行处标记
📜 在讨论中提问
|
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3061 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 43.42% 44.16% +0.73%
==========================================
Files 82 87 +5
Lines 10922 11199 +277
==========================================
+ Hits 4743 4946 +203
- Misses 5850 5897 +47
- Partials 329 356 +27
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
![lingma-agents[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1198481?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🔎 代码评审报告
🎯 评审意见概览
| 严重度 | 数量 | 说明 |
|---|---|---|
| 🔴 Blocker | 0 | 阻断性问题，需立即修复。例如：系统崩溃、关键功能不可用或严重安全漏洞。 |
| 🟠 Critical | 1 | 严重问题，高优先级修复。例如：核心功能异常或性能瓶颈影响用户体验。 |
| 🟡 Major | 3 | 主要问题，建议修复。例如：非核心功能缺陷或代码维护性较差。 |
| 🟢 Minor | 1 | 次要问题，酬情优化。例如：代码格式不规范或注释缺失。 |
总计: 5 个问题
📋 评审意见详情
💡 代码实现建议
以下是文件级别的代码建议，聚焦于代码的可读性、可维护性和潜在问题。
🔹 plugins/wasm-go/extensions/response-cache/cache/provider.go (2 💬)
- 默认端口逻辑应与文档保持一致，避免因服务类型判断错误导致连接失败。 (L65-L72)
- 应移除冗余的字段初始化代码以提高可读性和维护性。 (L74-L81)
🔹 plugins/wasm-go/extensions/response-cache/cache/redis.go (1 💬)
- Redis 客户端初始化失败时未向上传播错误，影响故障排查效率。 (L42-L48)
🔹 plugins/wasm-go/extensions/response-cache/config/config.go (1 💬)
- 响应码验证逻辑存在提前返回的风险，可能导致部分有效配置被忽略。 (L39-L46)
🔹 plugins/wasm-go/extensions/response-cache/core.go (1 💬)
🚀 架构设计建议
以下是对代码架构和设计的综合分析，聚焦于跨文件交互、系统一致性和潜在优化空间。
🔍1. 架构一致性问题：缓存提供者初始化逻辑分散
当前缓存提供者的初始化逻辑分散在多个文件中，例如在 provider.go 中定义了接口和初始化逻辑，而在 redis.go 中实现了具体的初始化。这种分散可能导致未来新增缓存类型时维护成本增加。建议将初始化逻辑集中到一个统一的工厂类或初始化管理器中，以提高代码的可维护性和扩展性。
未来新增缓存类型时，可能需要修改多个文件，增加出错风险和维护成本。
🔍2. 跨文件问题：配置解析逻辑重复
在 provider.go 和 config.go 中都存在对配置项的解析逻辑，尤其是对默认值的处理。这种重复可能导致配置解析不一致，增加调试和维护难度。建议将配置解析逻辑统一到一个地方，避免重复代码。
📌 关键代码
func (c *ProviderConfig) FromJson(json gjson.Result) {
c.typ = json.Get("type").String()
c.serviceName = json.Get("serviceName").String()
c.servicePort = int(json.Get("servicePort").Int())
if !json.Get("servicePort").Exists() {
if strings.HasSuffix(c.serviceName, ".static") {
// use default logic port which is 80 for static service
c.servicePort = 80
} else {
c.servicePort = 6379
}
}
c.serviceHost = json.Get("serviceHost").String()
c.username = json.Get("username").String()
if !json.Get("username").Exists() {
c.username = ""
}
c.password = json.Get("password").String()
if !json.Get("password").Exists() {
c.password = ""
}
c.timeout = uint32(json.Get("timeout").Int())
if !json.Get("timeout").Exists() {
c.timeout = 10000
}
c.cacheTTL = int(json.Get("cacheTTL").Int())
if !json.Get("cacheTTL").Exists() {
c.cacheTTL = 0
// c.cacheTTL = 3600000
}
if json.Get("cacheKeyPrefix").Exists() {
c.cacheKeyPrefix = json.Get("cacheKeyPrefix").String()
} else {
c.cacheKeyPrefix = DEFAULT_CACHE_PREFIX
}
}func (c *PluginConfig) FromJson(json gjson.Result) {
c.cacheProviderConfig.FromJson(json.Get("cache"))
c.CacheKeyFromHeader = json.Get("cacheKeyFromHeader").String()
c.CacheKeyFromBody = json.Get("cacheKeyFromBody").String()
c.CacheValueFromBodyType = json.Get("cacheValueFromBodyType").String()
if c.CacheValueFromBodyType == "" {
c.CacheValueFromBodyType = "application/json"
}
c.CacheValueFromBody = json.Get("cacheValueFromBody").String()
cacheResponseCode := json.Get("cacheResponseCode").Array()
c.CacheResponseCode = make([]int32, 0, len(cacheResponseCode))
for _, v := range cacheResponseCode {
responseCode, err := strconv.Atoi(v.String())
if err != nil || responseCode < 100 || responseCode > 999 {
log.Errorf("Skip invalid response_code value: %s", v.String())
return
}
c.CacheResponseCode = append(c.CacheResponseCode, int32(responseCode))
}
if len(c.CacheResponseCode) == 0 {
c.CacheResponseCode = []int32{200}
}
}配置解析不一致可能导致缓存功能异常，增加调试和维护难度。
🔍3. 技术债务：错误处理不一致
在多个文件中，错误处理的方式不一致。例如，在 redis.go 中，Redis客户端初始化失败时未向上传播错误，而在其他地方则有错误传播。这种不一致可能导致错误处理不完整，影响系统的健壮性。建议统一错误处理机制，确保所有错误都能被正确处理和传播。
📌 关键代码
func (rp *redisProvider) Init(username string, password string, timeout uint32) error {
err := rp.client.Init(rp.config.username, rp.config.password, int64(rp.config.timeout))
if rp.client.Ready() {
log.Info("redis init successfully")
} else {
log.Error("redis init failed, will try later")
}
return err
}错误处理不一致可能导致系统在遇到错误时行为不可预测，影响系统的稳定性和可靠性。
🔍4. 性能影响：缓存键生成逻辑可能成为瓶颈
在 core.go 中，缓存键的生成逻辑涉及字符串拼接和多次调用。如果请求量大，这种操作可能成为性能瓶颈。建议优化缓存键生成逻辑，减少不必要的字符串操作，提高性能。
📌 关键代码
queryKey := activeCacheProvider.GetCacheKeyPrefix() + key在高并发场景下，缓存键生成逻辑可能成为性能瓶颈，影响系统响应速度。
🔍5. 安全风险：缓存键和值的处理缺乏安全校验
在 core.go 和 main.go 中，缓存键和值的处理缺乏安全校验，可能存在注入攻击的风险。建议对缓存键和值进行严格的校验和过滤，防止恶意输入导致的安全问题。
📌 关键代码
queryKey := activeCacheProvider.GetCacheKeyPrefix() + keykey = bodyJson.Get(c.CacheKeyFromBody).String()缺乏安全校验可能导致缓存键和值被恶意利用，引发安全问题。
审查详情
📒 文件清单 （11 个文件）
✅ 新增: 11 个文件
✅ 新增文件:
plugins/wasm-go/extensions/response-cache/README.mdplugins/wasm-go/extensions/response-cache/README_EN.mdplugins/wasm-go/extensions/response-cache/cache/provider.goplugins/wasm-go/extensions/response-cache/cache/redis.goplugins/wasm-go/extensions/response-cache/config/config.goplugins/wasm-go/extensions/response-cache/core.goplugins/wasm-go/extensions/response-cache/go.modplugins/wasm-go/extensions/response-cache/go.sumplugins/wasm-go/extensions/response-cache/main.goplugins/wasm-go/extensions/response-cache/main_test.goplugins/wasm-go/extensions/response-cache/option.yaml
💡 小贴士
与 lingma-agents 交流的方式
📜 直接回复评论
直接回复本条评论，lingma-agents 将自动处理您的请求。例如：
-
在当前代码中添加详细的注释说明。
-
请详细介绍一下你说的 LRU 改造方案，并使用伪代码加以说明。
📜 在代码行处标记
在文件的特定位置创建评论并 @lingma-agents。例如：
-
@lingma-agents 分析这个方法的性能瓶颈并提供优化建议。
-
@lingma-agents 对这个方法生成优化代码。
📜 在讨论中提问
在任何讨论中 @lingma-agents 来获取帮助。例如：
-
@lingma-agents 请总结上述讨论并提出解决方案。
-
@lingma-agents 请根据讨论内容生成优化代码。
… key construction, streamline cache key usage in CheckCacheForKey and cacheResponse functions, and clean up unused username and password checks in ProviderConfig. Change-Id: I784f4811ee3f38a4f58db37b07075c545366763c Co-developed-by: Cursor <noreply@cursor.com>
daixijun
pushed a commit
to daixijun/higress
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 13, 2026
Co-authored-by: mirror58229 <674958229@qq.com>
ISADBA
pushed a commit
to ISADBA/higress
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 13, 2026
Co-authored-by: mirror58229 <674958229@qq.com>
ISADBA
pushed a commit
to ISADBA/higress
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 13, 2026
Co-authored-by: mirror58229 <674958229@qq.com>
Jing-ze
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 19, 2026
Co-authored-by: mirror58229 <674958229@qq.com>
johnlanni
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 31, 2026
Co-authored-by: mirror58229 <674958229@qq.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Ⅰ. Describe what this PR did
This PR fixes issues in the response-cache plugin implementation #2025 and adds comprehensive unit tests:
Bug Fixes:
cacheKeyFromHeaderorcacheKeyFromBodyis empty - now properly skips response processing instead of unnecessarily buffering response bodieslogparameter from cache provider functions to fix interface mismatchwrapper.ParseConfigBy→wrapper.ParseConfig, etc.)Improvements:
Testing:
main_test.go) covering:Ⅱ. Does this pull request fix one issue?
No specific issue, but fixes critical bugs in PR #2025.
Ⅲ. Why don't you add test cases (unit test/integration test)?
✅ Comprehensive unit tests have been added.
The test suite includes:
TestParseConfig: Tests configuration validation for various scenarios (header key, body key, conflicts, missing cache provider)TestOnHttpRequestHeaders: Tests request header processing for different content typesTestOnHttpRequestBody: Tests body parsing and key extractionTestOnHttpResponseHeaders: Tests response header processingTestOnHttpResponseBody: Tests response body extractionTestCacheHitFlow: Tests complete cache hit/miss flows with Redis mockingAll tests use proper Redis response mocking via the test framework utilities.
Ⅳ. Describe how to verify it
Run unit tests:
Expected test results:
Ⅴ. Special notes for reviews
This PR addresses several critical issues from the original PR #2025:
The changes maintain backward compatibility while fixing these issues and adding robust test coverage.