feat(main): Add Close() method to cache manager

[elizabethhealy]

Proposed Changes

Add cleanup for underlying Ristretto cache by tracking and explicitly closing it to avoid goroutine leaks and ensure proper resource release.

Details:
Modified cache.Manager to store a reference to the underlying *ristretto.Cache.
Added a Close() method to Manager that calls .Close() on the underlying Ristretto cache.

Why:
Ristretto starts background goroutines and allocates internal buffers that aren't automatically cleaned up. Explicitly calling .Close() ensures proper shutdown, especially important in tests and long-running services

Checklist

• I have added or updated unit tests
• I have added or updated integration tests (if appropriate)
• I have added or updated documentation

Testing Instructions

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @elizabethhealy, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request introduces a critical cleanup mechanism for the application's caching layer. By adding a Close() method to the cache manager and ensuring its invocation during application shutdown, it addresses potential resource leaks associated with the underlying Ristretto cache, promoting more robust and efficient resource management.

Highlights

• Cache Manager Enhancement: The Manager struct in the cache package now includes a direct reference (raw *ristretto.Cache) to the underlying Ristretto cache instance. This allows for explicit management of the Ristretto cache's lifecycle.
• Resource Cleanup Method: A new Close() method has been added to the Manager struct. This method is responsible for calling the Close() method on the underlying Ristretto cache, which is crucial for releasing background goroutines and internal buffers.
• Application Shutdown Integration: The Close() method for the cache manager is now deferred in the main Start function of the server. This ensures that the cache resources are properly cleaned up when the service shuts down, preventing potential resource leaks.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist is currently in preview and may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments to provide feedback.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

---

Cache holds data fast, Close the door, let threads all rest, No leaks, peace of mind.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request introduces a Close() method to the cache.Manager to ensure proper cleanup of the underlying Ristretto cache, preventing resource leaks. The changes are well-contained and address an important aspect of resource management. I've identified a high-severity issue in service/pkg/server/start.go regarding the order of defer calls, which could lead to errors during application shutdown, and a medium-severity issue in service/pkg/cache/cache.go concerning inconsistent receiver naming, which affects code maintainability.

[github-actions]

Benchmark results, click to expand

Benchmark authorization.GetDecisions Results:

Metric	Value
Approved Decision Requests	5000
Denied Decision Requests	0
Total Time	521.979194ms

Benchmark authorization.v2.GetMultiResourceDecision Results:

Metric	Value
Approved Decision Requests	5000
Denied Decision Requests	0
Total Time	316.621726ms

Standard Benchmark Metrics Skipped or Failed

Bulk Benchmark Results

Metric	Value
Total Decrypts	100
Successful Decrypts	100
Failed Decrypts	0
Total Time	356.622318ms
Throughput	280.41 requests/second

TDF3 Benchmark Results:

Metric	Value
Total Requests	5000
Successful Requests	5000
Failed Requests	0
Concurrent Requests	50
Total Time	36.688838657s
Average Latency	365.323867ms
Throughput	136.28 requests/second

NANOTDF Benchmark Results:

Metric	Value
Total Requests	5000
Successful Requests	5000
Failed Requests	0
Concurrent Requests	50
Total Time	25.881567306s
Average Latency	257.5756ms
Throughput	193.19 requests/second

[github-actions]

Benchmark results, click to expand

Benchmark authorization.GetDecisions Results:

Metric	Value
Approved Decision Requests	5000
Denied Decision Requests	0
Total Time	542.762106ms

Benchmark authorization.v2.GetMultiResourceDecision Results:

Metric	Value
Approved Decision Requests	5000
Denied Decision Requests	0
Total Time	334.156694ms

Standard Benchmark Metrics Skipped or Failed

Bulk Benchmark Results

Metric	Value
Total Decrypts	100
Successful Decrypts	100
Failed Decrypts	0
Total Time	515.750683ms
Throughput	193.89 requests/second

TDF3 Benchmark Results:

Metric	Value
Total Requests	5000
Successful Requests	5000
Failed Requests	0
Concurrent Requests	50
Total Time	37.477286296s
Average Latency	372.670769ms
Throughput	133.41 requests/second

NANOTDF Benchmark Results:

Metric	Value
Total Requests	5000
Successful Requests	5000
Failed Requests	0
Concurrent Requests	50
Total Time	26.271104982s
Average Latency	261.447022ms
Throughput	190.32 requests/second

[github-actions]

Benchmark results, click to expand

Benchmark authorization.GetDecisions Results:

Metric	Value
Approved Decision Requests	5000
Denied Decision Requests	0
Total Time	509.971171ms

Benchmark authorization.v2.GetMultiResourceDecision Results:

Metric	Value
Approved Decision Requests	5000
Denied Decision Requests	0
Total Time	330.66438ms

Standard Benchmark Metrics Skipped or Failed

Bulk Benchmark Results

Metric	Value
Total Decrypts	100
Successful Decrypts	100
Failed Decrypts	0
Total Time	337.333129ms
Throughput	296.44 requests/second

TDF3 Benchmark Results:

Metric	Value
Total Requests	5000
Successful Requests	5000
Failed Requests	0
Concurrent Requests	50
Total Time	35.844994201s
Average Latency	356.109941ms
Throughput	139.49 requests/second

NANOTDF Benchmark Results:

Metric	Value
Total Requests	5000
Successful Requests	5000
Failed Requests	0
Concurrent Requests	50
Total Time	25.452373398s
Average Latency	253.522046ms
Throughput	196.45 requests/second

[github-actions]

Benchmark results, click to expand

Benchmark authorization.GetDecisions Results:

Metric	Value
Approved Decision Requests	5000
Denied Decision Requests	0
Total Time	545.605102ms

Benchmark authorization.v2.GetMultiResourceDecision Results:

Metric	Value
Approved Decision Requests	5000
Denied Decision Requests	0
Total Time	341.323658ms

Standard Benchmark Metrics Skipped or Failed

Bulk Benchmark Results

Metric	Value
Total Decrypts	100
Successful Decrypts	100
Failed Decrypts	0
Total Time	350.424067ms
Throughput	285.37 requests/second

TDF3 Benchmark Results:

Metric	Value
Total Requests	5000
Successful Requests	5000
Failed Requests	0
Concurrent Requests	50
Total Time	38.698497778s
Average Latency	385.494465ms
Throughput	129.20 requests/second

NANOTDF Benchmark Results:

Metric	Value
Total Requests	5000
Successful Requests	5000
Failed Requests	0
Concurrent Requests	50
Total Time	26.271177439s
Average Latency	261.872553ms
Throughput	190.32 requests/second