Add LRC functionality

[wordpressfan]

Description

Fixes #7

Documentation

User documentation

Explain how this code impacts users.

Technical documentation

Explain how this code works. Diagram & drawings are welcomed.

Type of change

Delete options that are not relevant.

• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality).
• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue).
• Enhancement (non-breaking change which improves an existing functionality).
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as before).

New dependencies

List any new dependencies that are required for this change.

Risks

List possible performance & security issues or risks, and explain how they have been mitigated.

Checklists

Feature validation

• I validated all the Acceptance Criteria. If possible, provide sreenshots or videos.
• I triggered all changed lines of code at least once without new errors/warnings/notices.
• I implemented built-in tests to cover the new/changed code.

Documentation

• I prepared the user documentation for the feature/enhancement and shared it in the PR or the GitHub issue.
• The user documentation covers new/changed entry points (endpoints, WP hooks, configuration files, ...).
• I prepared the technical documentation if needed, and shared it in the PR or the GitHub issue.

Code style

• I wrote self-explanatory code about what it does.
• I wrote comments to explain why it does it.
• I named variables and functions explicitely.
• I protected entry points against unexpected inputs.
• I did not introduce unecessary complexity.
• I listed the introduced external dependencies explicitely on the PR.
• I validated the repo-specific guidelines from CONTRIBUTING.md.

Observability

• I handled errors when needed.
•  I wrote user-facing messages that are understandable and provide actionable feedbacks.
• I prepared ways to observe the implemented system (logs, data, etc.).

Risks

•  I explicitely mentioned performance risks in the PR.
• I explicitely mentioned security risks in the PR.

[codacy-production]

Coverage summary from Codacy

See diff coverage on Codacy

Coverage variation	Diff coverage
✅ +1.46% (target: -1.00%)	✅ 64.77% (target: 50.00%)

Coverage variation details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Coverage
Common ancestor commit (ba590ed)	409	241	58.92%
Head commit (13a78bf)	578 (+169)	349 (+108)	60.38% (+1.46%)

Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: <coverage of head commit> - <coverage of common ancestor commit>

Diff coverage details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Diff coverage
Pull request (#20)	176	114	64.77%

Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: <covered lines added or modified>/<coverable lines added or modified> * 100%

See your quality gate settings    Change summary preferences

_{Codacy stopped sending the deprecated coverage status on June 5th, 2024. Learn more}

[MathieuLamiot]

Can we work on the code coverage with tests on this PR?
I think this is not blocking for testing 3.17 and moving forward as we already have a merged version of the script into WP Rocket.
But before validating the PR on the rocket-scripts side, increasing code coverage would be good.

I opened a GitHub issue for this, linked to this PR too. #23