Instead of checking for `macro == :has_one` throughout the
codebase we can create a `has_one?` method to match the `belongs_to?`,
`polymorphic?` and other methods.

Fix habtm reflection
Conflicts:
    activerecord/CHANGELOG.md
    activerecord/lib/active_record/counter_cache.rb
    activerecord/lib/active_record/reflection.rb
    activerecord/test/cases/reflection_test.rb

AssociationScope no longer maintains state, so we're safe to keep a
singleton and save on GC time

methods that call set_inverse_instance with a record will not have to
pay the cost of a nil check on every call

check at association reader that record is inverted and should not be reloaded because of stale was changed at target record

The previous implementation was necessary in order to support stuff
like:

    class Post < ActiveRecord::Base
      default_scope where(published: true)
      scope :ordered, order("created_at")
    end

If we didn't evaluate the default scope at the last possible moment
before sending the SQL to the database, it would become impossible to
do:

    Post.unscoped.ordered

This is because the default scope would already be bound up in the
"ordered" scope, and therefore wouldn't be removed by the
"Post.unscoped" part.

In 4.0, we have deprecated all "eager" forms of scopes. So now you must
write:

    class Post < ActiveRecord::Base
      default_scope { where(published: true) }
      scope :ordered, -> { order("created_at") }
    end

This prevents the default scope getting bound up inside the "ordered"
scope, which means we can now have a simpler/better/more natural
implementation of default scoping.

A knock on effect is that some things that didn't work properly now do.
For example it was previously impossible to use #except to remove a part
of the default scope, since the default scope was evaluated after the
call to #except.

Suppose Man has_many interests, and inverse_of is used.

Man.first.interests.first.man will correctly execute two queries,
avoiding the need for a third query when Interest#man is called. This is
because CollectionAssociation#first calls set_inverse_instance.

However Man.first.interests.where("1=1").first.man will execute three
queries, even though this is obviously a subset of the records in the
association.

This is because calling where("1=1") spawns a new Relation object from
the CollectionProxy object, and the Relation has no knowledge of the
association, so it cannot set the inverse instance.

This commit solves the problem by making relations spawned from
CollectionProxies return a new Relation subclass called
AssociationRelation, which does know about associations. Records loaded
from this class will get the inverse instance set properly.

Fixes #5717.

Live commit from La Conf! ✨

For one-to-one nested associations, if you build the new (in-memory)
child object yourself before assignment, then the NestedAttributes
module will not overwrite it, e.g.:

    class Member < ActiveRecord::Base
      has_one :avatar
      accepts_nested_attributes_for :avatar

      def avatar
        super || build_avatar(width: 200)
      end
    end

    member = Member.new
    member.avatar_attributes = {icon: 'sad'}
    member.avatar.width # => 200

This fixes inconsistency when building children of association
which has inverse_of set properly.

When creating new association object with a block:

    parent.association.build do |child|
      child.parent.equal?(parent) # false
    end

So the block the `child.parent` did not point to the same object.
But when the object is created it points to same instance:

    child = parent.association.build
    child.parent.equal?(parent) # true

Closes #8265

It's sometimes hard to quickly find where deprecated call was performed, especially in case of migrating between Rails versions. So this is an attempt to improve the call stack part of the warning message by providing caller explicitly.

Fix destructive side effects from marshaling an association caused by 65843e1a

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.

This reverts commit 3803fcce.

Conflicts:
	activerecord/CHANGELOG.md

It will be deprecated only in 4.0, and removed properly in 4.1.

It doesn't serve much purpose now that ActiveRecord::Base.all returns a
Relation.

The code is moved to active_record_deprecated_finders.

This reverts commit fa6d921e.

Reason: Not a fan of such massive changes. We usually close such changes
if made to Rails master as a pull request. Following the same principle
here and reverting.

[ci skip]