Add support for caching fetched relations with Criteria

[bahusoid]

Follow up to #1952
As for Criteria it's much simpler to collect entities that are already present in ResultTypes (and so in cache) I've reversed original implementation - and instead of additional entities to cache provide entities that already cached. And additional entities (fetched entities and collections) are calculated automatically.

[bahusoid]

Small unrelated clean up

[bahusoid]

Nope. I'm wrong. Transformers are applied in both cases before caching. All we need is hql query with fetches and additional data in output and transformer that modifies number of objects in results. So something like this fails in hql on master too:

var list = session.CreateQuery("select o.Customer.CompanyName, o from Order o join fetch o.Customer")
         .SetCacheable(true)
         .SetResultTransformer(new RootEntityResultTransformer())
         .List<object>();

[bahusoid]

So the issue: QueryCacheResultBuilder builds results based on loader.ResultTypes. It expects count to match provided tuple. But user transformer can modify tuple size (RootEntityResultTransformer is one example) and that breaks QueryCacheResultBuilder.AddRow logic.

The fix: put in cache untransformed results for queries that recognized as "queries with fetched relations"

[bahusoid]

Found another cache quirk. Entities returned in hql/linq projections (like Select(x => x.Customer)) are not cached. See added test ProjectedEntitiesAreCachable

Though this issue is unrelated to changes here or in #1952. As this query doesn't have fetches and processed by old logic.

[fredericDelaporte]

I have rebased for fixing conflicts.

[fredericDelaporte]

I do not get what is its purpose.

[bahusoid]

To make it appear in search when user enters Criteria trying to find some Criteria related tests

[fredericDelaporte]

Can-it be just a comment, not a dummy class?
Or do we need really need it anyway? It is there just because query-over is an added layer to criteria and so test it by the way, isn't-it?

[bahusoid]

Can-it be just a comment, not a dummy class?

When I'm not sure which test fixture I need I often try to find fixture class I need by some keywords. So comment is less discoverable than dummy class. Well if you really dislike it - you can drop it.

It is there just because query-over is an added layer to criteria and so test it by the way, isn't-it?

Yes.

[bahusoid]

And why bug? IMHO it's a new feature

[fredericDelaporte]

I have classified it as bug for consistency with #1195 which was fixed by #1952. It was considered there that not caching fetches in Linq was a bug, so why not doing the same for criteria/query-over? Otherwise we should re-qualify #1195.

[bahusoid]

It was considered there that not caching fetches in Linq was a bug, so why not doing the same for criteria/query-over

Hm... Ok. I didn't pay attention how it was classified for Linq/hql. But if re-qualifying means only changing labels - let's re-qualify. IMO those PRs should be stated in release in New Features list.