fix: plugin_configs should store with etcd prefix

[MizuhaHimuraki]

Please answer these questions before submitting a pull request, or your PR will get closed.

Why submit this pull request?

• Bugfix
• New feature provided
• Improve performance
• Backport patches

What changes will this PR take into?

Use etcd prefix in plugin_configs template

Related issues
plugin_configs miss match when the etcd prefix is not '/apisix'

2021/11/29 19:40:06 [error] 12464#12464: *21668 [lua] init.lua:400: http_access_phase(): failed to fetch plugin config by id: 383574139283178878, client: 30.49.4.130, server: _, request: "GET /hello HTTP/2.0", host: "xxx.com"

# etcdctl get --prefix /apisix
...
/apisix-3b5e0cc5/upstreams/383566764287460734
{...}
/apisix-3b5e0cc5/upstreams/383570406268732798
{...}
/apisix/plugin_configs/383574139283178878
{...}
...

Checklist:

• Did you explain what problem does this PR solve? Or what new features have been added?
• Have you added corresponding test cases?
• Have you modified the corresponding document?
• Is this PR backward compatible? If it is not backward compatible, please discuss on the mailing list first

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #2226 (ad710f8) into master (a555684) will increase coverage by 7.45%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2226      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   62.43%   69.89%   +7.45%     
==========================================
  Files          57      184     +127     
  Lines        3905     7257    +3352     
  Branches        0      824     +824     
==========================================
+ Hits         2438     5072    +2634     
- Misses       1185     1891     +706     
- Partials      282      294      +12     

Flag	Coverage Δ
backend-e2e-test	44.19% <100.00%> (-0.11%)	⬇️
backend-e2e-test-ginkgo	52.06% <100.00%> (?)
backend-unit-test	49.16% <0.00%> (+0.03%)	⬆️
frontend-e2e-test	68.13% <ø> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
api/internal/core/store/storehub.go	72.59% <100.00%> (+17.03%)	⬆️
web/src/constants.ts	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
web/src/components/PluginFlow/PluginFlow.tsx	1.42% <0.00%> (ø)
web/src/components/Plugin/UI/limit-conn.tsx	92.30% <0.00%> (ø)
web/src/components/Plugin/UI/plugin.tsx	91.66% <0.00%> (ø)
...nents/Upstream/components/ServiceDiscoveryArgs.tsx	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
web/src/components/Upstream/components/TLS.tsx	10.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...b/src/components/Plugin/UI/referer-restriction.tsx	90.90% <0.00%> (ø)
web/src/pages/Consumer/service.ts	92.30% <0.00%> (ø)
web/src/pages/Setting/Setting.tsx	94.59% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 142 more

---

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 a555684...ad710f8. Read the comment docs.

[bzp2010]

LGTM, just wait the CI passed.

[zaunist]

LGTM, just wait the CI passed.

Hi, in this PR, the backend-e2e-ginkgo just run alarm test, is this normal ?

[juzhiyuan]

LGTM, just wait the CI passed.

Hi, in this PR, the backend-e2e-ginkgo just run alarm test, is this normal ?

cc @bzp2010

[zaunist]

LGTM, just wait the CI passed.

Hi, in this PR, the backend-e2e-ginkgo just run alarm test, is this normal ?

cc @bzp2010

😂,I checked again and there is no problem, I was looking at it wrong before, this test is running so fast I can't believe it