`Mutex` was removed at 8eb7561a.

The current code base is not uniform. After some discussion,
we have chosen to go with double quotes by default.

It's finally finished!!!!!!! The reason the Attributes API was kept
private in 4.2 was due to some publicly visible implementation details.
It was previously implemented by overloading `columns` and
`columns_hash`, to make them return column objects which were modified
with the attribute information.

This meant that those methods LIED! We didn't change the database
schema. We changed the attribute information on the class. That is
wrong! It should be the other way around, where schema loading just
calls the attributes API for you. And now it does!

Yes, this means that there is nothing that happens in automatic schema
loading that you couldn't manually do yourself. (There's still some
funky cases where we hit the connection adapter that I need to handle,
before we can turn off automatic schema detection entirely.)

There were a few weird test failures caused by this that had to be
fixed. The main source came from the fact that the attribute methods are
now defined in terms of `attribute_names`, which has a clause like
`return [] unless table_exists?`. I don't *think* this is an issue,
since the only place this caused failures were in a fake adapter which
didn't override `table_exists?`.

Additionally, there were a few cases where tests were failing because a
migration was run, but the model was not reloaded. I'm not sure why
these started failing from this change, I might need to clear an
additional cache in `reload_schema_from_cache`. Again, since this is not
normal usage, and it's expected that `reset_column_information` will be
called after the table is modified, I don't think it's a problem.

Still, test failures that were unrelated to the change are worrying, and
I need to dig into them further.

Finally, I spent a lot of time debugging issues with the mutex used in
`define_attribute_methods`. I think we can just remove that method
entirely, and define the attribute methods *manually* in the call to
`define_attribute`, which would simplify the code *tremendously*.

Ok. now to make this damn thing public, and work on moving it up to
Active Model.

Closes #16684.

This is achieved by always generating `GeneratedAssociationMethods` when
`ActiveRecord::Base` is subclassed. When some of the included modules
of `ActiveRecord::Base` were reordered this behavior was broken as
`Core#initialize_generated_modules` was no longer called. Meaning that
the module was generated on first access.

This refactoring revealed the need for another form of decoration, which
takes a proc to select which it applies to (There's a *lot* of cases
where this form can be used). To avoid duplication, we can re-implement
the old decoration in terms of the proc-based decoration.

The reason we're `instance_exec`ing the matcher is for cases such as
time zone aware attributes, where a decorator is defined in a parent
class, and a method called in the matcher is overridden by a child
class. The matcher will close over the parent, and evaluate in its
context, which is not the behavior we want.

In the end I think the pain of implementing this seamlessly was not
worth the gain provided.

The intention was that it would allow plain ruby objects that might not
live in your main application to be subclassed and have persistence
mixed in. But I've decided that the benefit of doing that is not worth
the amount of complexity that the implementation introduced.

Selecting which key extensions to include in active_support/rails
made apparent the systematic usage of Object#in? in the code base.
After some discussion in

    https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/5ea6b0df9a36d033f21b52049426257a4637028d

we decided to remove it and use plain Ruby, which seems enough
for this particular idiom.

In this commit the refactor has been made case by case. Sometimes
include? is the natural alternative, others a simple || is the
way you actually spell the condition in your head, others a case
statement seems more appropriate. I have chosen the one I liked
the most in each case.

Get rid of ActiveModel::Configuration, make better use of
ActiveSupport::Concern + class_attribute, etc.

From 2c667f69.

Thanks @pwnall for the heads-up.

The problem: We need to be able to specify configuration in a way that
can be inherited to models that include ActiveRecord::Model. So it is
no longer sufficient to put 'top level' config on ActiveRecord::Base,
but we do want configuration specified on ActiveRecord::Base and
descendants to continue to work.

So we need something like class_attribute that can be defined on a
module but that is inherited when ActiveRecord::Model is included.

The solution: added ActiveModel::Configuration module which provides a
config_attribute macro. It's a bit specific hence I am not putting this
in Active Support or making it a 'public API' at present.

This reverts commit ee2be435.

If we don't have a primary key when we ask for it, it's better to fail
fast. Fixes GH #2307.

This fixes a situation I encountered where a subclass would cache the
name of a generated attribute method in @_defined_class_methods. Then,
when the superclass has it's attribute methods undefined, the subclass
would always have to dispatch through method_missing, because the
presence of the attribute in @_defined_class_methods would mean that it
is never generated again, even if undefine_attribute_methods is called
on the subclass.

There various other confusing edge cases like this. STI classes share
columns, so let's just keep all the attribute method generation state
isolated to the base class.

Refactor Active Record test connection setup. Please see the RUNNING_UNIT_TESTS file for details, but essentially you can now configure things in test/config.yml. You can also run tests directly via the command line, e.g. ruby path/to/test.rb (no rake needed, uses default db connection from test/config.yml). This will help us fix the CI by enabling us to isolate the different Rails versions to different databases.

There're a lot of places in Rails source code which make a lot of sense to switching to Object#in? or Object#either? instead of using [].include?.