Added grouping routes for ratelimit

[aniketcodes]

This PR adds the capability to group various routes and have a common rate limit for them.
#369

Checklist

• run npm run test and npm run benchmark
• tests and/or benchmarks are included
• documentation is changed or added
• commit message and code follows the Developer's Certification of Origin
  and the Code of conduct

[mcollina]

lgtm

[mcollina]

CI is failing

[aniket-agi]

Yeah... There is some issue with the coverage...
I will update the test cases by today.

[aniketcodes]

Updated the testcases

[gurgunday]

it's still red

[aniketcodes]

[aniketcodes]

It is fixed. @gurgunday

[aniketcodes]

Hi @gurgunday / @mcollina Can you please help me with these? Am I missing something with the test?

[aniketcodes]

@gurgunday can you please run the CI again?

[gurgunday]

I’ll take a look if it’s passing on your end

[aniketcodes]

Hi @gurgunday
Can you please run the CI again?

There was some issue with node_modules and c8. I have fixed them.

[gurgunday]

Alright, the implementation LGTM, but I'm not really sure why we need it

Why not just group these routes together and extract them into a plugin? rate-limit supports encapsulation, so why not sth like:

fastify.register(async (fastify) => {
  await fastify.register(import("@fastify/rate-limit"), {
    max: 3,
    timeWindow: "1 minute",
  });

  fastify.get(
    "/otp/send",
    (request, reply) => {
      reply.send({ hello: "from ... grouped rate limit" });
    },
  );

  fastify.get(
    "/otp/resend",
    (request, reply) => {
      reply.send({ hello: "from ... grouped rate limit" });
    },
  );
});

[aniketcodes]

Added it so that it is easily configurable across different route files.

[aniketcodes]

@gurgunday Will this implementation enhance the feature of grouping the routes without encapsulation?

[gurgunday]

I'm not sure, I feel like we're duplicating functionality and all these small additions might add up to slow down the rate limiter performance

@climba03003 @Uzlopak what do you think? Keep in mind #380 (review) already exists

[gugu]

I'm not sure, I feel like we're duplicating functionality and all these small additions might add up to slow down the rate limiter performance

We have a kind-of-common use case for it: we have several similar endpoints. Some of them should be used from frontend, some from backend and so on. If we use per-route rate limit some clever users start to use all similar endpoints to achieve their task and 50 rps becomes 300 rps

[mcollina]

lgtm