Remove surplus _IN and _NOT_IN filters for relationships

[darrellwarde]

Description

Let's take the opportunity of this breaking release to remove some surplus requirements, _IN and _NOT_IN for one-to-many and one-to-one relationships. We don't currently treat these relationship cardinalities differently anywhere else, the filters are completely untested, and the same filters can be achieved through other means (see migration guide for example).

Checklist

The following requirements should have been met (depending on the changes in the branch):

• Documentation has been updated
• TCK tests have been updated
• Integration tests have been updated
• Example applications have been updated
• New files have copyright header
• CLA (https://neo4j.com/developer/cla/) has been signed

[danstarns]

If we are going to remove them, Let's remove them for good. You have forgotten about the code behind these here and here. I'm not sure I completely understand the reasoning for removing them and if they work just fine why are we getting rid?

[darrellwarde]

If we are going to remove them, Let's remove them for good. You have forgotten about the code behind these here and here. I'm not sure I completely understand the reasoning for removing them and if they work just fine why are we getting rid?

Honestly, I don't think the Cypher for them is even correct (wrong predicate), and we really shouldn't have any untested paths in our code. I was able to remove these two filters and only 1 (!) TCK test broke - I don't think that's really the level of quality we should be aiming for.

It's also super inconsistent - if we have these, then we should also have _INCLUDES and _NOT_INCLUDES for the "many" side of a relationship.

[oskarhane]

LGTM