feat(cloudflare): allow prefix on createWorkersKVSessionStorage

[sergiodxa]

This is something I'm doing myself in a project and I think it would be useful to have directly in React Router for others as well.

Right now using createWorkersKVSessionStorage fills your Worker KV of keys like 64eb4897d922128d, if you don't use a KV exclusively for your sessions you can make it really hard to use CF Worker KV Dashboard to inspect the keys.

There's also no way to list every session and delete them, e.g you can't do this:

let result = await env.KV.list({ prefix: "session:" });
for (let key of result.keys) await env.KV.delete(key.name);

This small change adds an optional prefix option that can be used to solve this, so you can now do:

const sessionStorage = createWorkersKVSessionStorage({ cookie, kv, prefix: "session:" }) 

And now this session storage will add session: to every key ending up with something like session:64eb4897d922128d which can be easily be listed and work with using KV bindings.

[changeset-bot]

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: f20b033

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 11 packages

Name	Type
@react-router/cloudflare	Major
create-react-router	Major
react-router	Major
react-router-dom	Major
@react-router/architect	Major
@react-router/dev	Major
@react-router/fs-routes	Major
@react-router/express	Major
@react-router/node	Major
@react-router/remix-routes-option-adapter	Major
@react-router/serve	Major

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

[brophdawg11]

We should probably open an RFC for this to follow the new process. I think this seems handy - but wonder if an optional id() factory function defaulting to the current logic would be a bit more general use-case?

[brophdawg11]

I hope you don't mind - I'm using this PR to test out the new alpha release workflow since I haven't tested that on a PR from a forked repo yet :)

Update: it failed 🙃 - looks like I need to dig into the workflow permissions from forked repos so I'll do that separately

[brophdawg11]

I'm going to close this for now according to the new Open Governance model - let's open a Proposal and then if it moves along we can re-open this PR