modify cache_test for issues #330

[mamoroom]

PK should be defined for hitting cache.
In this test, only the function "TestCacheFind2" will return wrong error.
5b65f21

[xorm] [info]  2017/07/05 00:14:32.340455 [SQL] SELECT `id`, `username`, `password` FROM `mail_box2` WHERE `id` IN (?,?) [0 1]
[xorm] [debug] 2017/07/05 00:14:32.340568 [cacheFind] cache bean:mail_box2[0] &{0 user1 pass1} [0xc42001bd10 <nil>]
[xorm] [debug] 2017/07/05 00:14:32.340579 [cacheFind] cache bean:mail_box2[1] &{1 user2 pass2} [0xc42001bd38 <nil>]
[xorm] [warn]  2017/07/05 00:14:32.340583 [cacheFind] cache no hit:mail_box2[1] [0xc42001bd38 <nil>]
--- FAIL: TestCacheFind2 (0.00s)
        Error Trace:    cache_test.go:95
        Error:          Not equal: 2 (expected)
                                != 1 (actual)

        Error Trace:    cache_test.go:97
        Error:          Not equal: 0x0 (expected)
                                != 0x1 (actual)

        Error Trace:    cache_test.go:98
        Error:          Not equal: "user1" (expected)
                                != "user2" (actual)

        Error Trace:    cache_test.go:99
        Error:          Not equal: "pass1" (expected)
                                != "pass2" (actual)

        Error Trace:    cache_test.go:104
        Error:          Not equal: 2 (expected)
                                != 1 (actual)

        Error Trace:    cache_test.go:106
        Error:          Not equal: 0x0 (expected)
                                != 0x1 (actual)

        Error Trace:    cache_test.go:107
        Error:          Not equal: "user1" (expected)
                                != "user2" (actual)

        Error Trace:    cache_test.go:108
        Error:          Not equal: "pass1" (expected)
                                != "pass2" (actual)

FAIL
exit status 1
FAIL    github.com/mamoroom/xorm        0.091s

[lunny]

@mamoroom The change is no need. Id int64 will be recognized by xorm as primary key and auctonicrment.

[mamoroom]

@lunny I don't think so. I got different records when I add pk tag in table struct. Then, I got wrong error results for cache getting.
Please execute and compare the result your testing and my testing.

[lunny]

Yes, I'm tracking the issue.

[mamoroom]

Just to be clear, there are some glitches caching uint64 pk's rows, right?
If you understand this case, I will try to resolve this problem.

[lunny]

Yes. I think you are right. It's uint64 pk case. Could you send a PR to resolve that?

[mamoroom]

Thanks.
To solve that, let me ask something.
Do you have any plan to support unsigned type?
I think an uint field in table struct should be defined as unsigned on Database(like mysql).
If you are already in the process of supporting unsigned type, I will resolve on that branch.
If not, I will resolve only this glitch on master branch.

[lunny]

@mamoroom Yes, I think we need uint on almost all databases except sqlite since it didn't support. But I haven't begin to do that. Maybe you can resolve this special thing at first. Thanks!

[mamoroom]

OK.
I don't know well about database features except mysql.
So as you say, it's better to fix this glitch at first.
Then I could collaborate new support if you want.

[lunny]

closed by #635