fix OptimistickLockError message

[PavelPolyakov]

BaseError expects to receive message, but the options object is being passed.

It leads to this:

SequelizeOptimisticLockError: [object Object]

With the fix the error looks like:

SequelizeOptimisticLockError: Attempting to update a stale model instance: Customers

Pull Request check-list

Please make sure to review and check all of these items:

• Does npm run test or npm run test-DIALECT pass with this change (including linting)?
• Does the description below contain a link to an existing issue (Closes #[issue]) or a description of the issue you are solving?
• Have you added new tests to prevent regressions?
• Is a documentation update included (if this change modifies existing APIs, or introduces new ones)?
• Did you follow the commit message conventions explained in CONTRIBUTING.md?

Description of change

[sushantdhiman]

This PR needs some tests, you can add new describe section for Optimistic locking here and get reference for sample tests from here, finally assert correct message is returned along with correct error type

[PavelPolyakov]

That's not what you expect when you use newly released inline edit button on github 😅
But I'll have a look.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #10068 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 100%.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master   #10068   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage    96.3%    96.3%           
=======================================
  Files          63       63           
  Lines        9413     9413           
=======================================
  Hits         9065     9065           
  Misses        348      348

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
lib/errors/index.js	100% <100%> (ø)	⬆️

---

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 122bd17...85b2b62. Read the comment docs.

[PavelPolyakov]

@sushantdhiman with all respect, I don't think that integration test is necessary here. The change is very minor and it just does the thing which was originally meant by author.

So I've put additional unit test, just to be rock solid, that message it there and has correct format.

Regards,

[sushantdhiman]

@PavelPolyakov integration test is important here, I'll add that test myself soon