Check the md5 of the metadata cache file

[finefuture]

What is the purpose of the change?

The local cache file may be damaged for various reasons, resulting in a no provider exception, check the consistency of md5 can avoid this problem.

Checklist

• Make sure there is a GitHub_issue field for the change.
• Write a pull request description that is detailed enough to understand what the pull request does, how, and why.
• Write necessary unit-test to verify your logic correction. If the new feature or significant change is committed, please remember to add sample in dubbo samples project.
• Make sure gitHub actions can pass. Why the workflow is failing and how to fix it?

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 82.35294% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 60.75%. Comparing base (6384ce5) to head (eba13a1).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...gistry/client/metadata/store/MetaCacheManager.java	50.00%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...rg/apache/dubbo/metadata/AbstractCacheManager.java	83.33%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##                3.3   #15006      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     58.88%   60.75%   +1.86%     
- Complexity       12    10866   +10854     
============================================
  Files          1882     1882              
  Lines         86004    86012       +8     
  Branches      12884    12884              
============================================
+ Hits          50644    52254    +1610     
+ Misses        29835    28307    -1528     
+ Partials       5525     5451      -74     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration-tests	33.00% <64.70%> (?)
samples-tests	29.21% <64.70%> (?)
unit-tests	58.93% <82.35%> (+0.05%)	⬆️

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[AlbumenJ]

It would be better to add a lock here to prevent concurrent modification.

BTW, please check other operation will aquire lock