feat(GraphQL): add support for IN filter

[minhaj-shakeel]

Fixes GRAPHQL-712.

This PR adds support for the IN filter in GraphQL.
For the given type State having @id directive at the field code :

type State {
        code: String! @id
        name: String!
	capital: String
}

Suppose we want to query States having either code = abc or def, then the corresponding GraphQL query is:

query {
      queryState(filter: {code: {in : ["abc", "def"]}}){
        code 
        name
      }
    }

---

This change is 

Docs Preview:

[codelingo]

LGTM. 3 rules errored during the review.

[codelingo]

LGTM. 6 rules errored during the review.

[codelingo]

LGTM. 1 rules errored during the review.

[codelingo]

1 issues found. 8 rules errored during the review.

[codelingo]

Unchecked type assertions can cause panics. Check for success with the x, ok := y.(type) style.

View Rule

[codelingo]

LGTM. 8 rules errored during the review.

[pawanrawal]

Reviewed 44 of 44 files at r1.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 4 unresolved discussions (waiting on @codelingo[bot], @MichaelJCompton, and @minhaj-shakeel)

---

graphql/e2e/common/query.go, line 350 at r1 (raw file):

func InFilter(t *testing.T) {
	addStateParams := &GraphQLParams{

inFilter

---

graphql/e2e/common/query.go, line 368 at r1 (raw file):

	}

	gqlResponse := addStateParams.ExecuteAsPost(t, GraphqlURL)

Can we also add a test where in used for updateState.

---

graphql/resolve/query_rewriter.go, line 1068 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, codelingo[bot] wrote…

Unchecked type assertions can cause panics. Check for success with the x, ok := y.(type) style.

View Rule

Add a comment saying that

No need to check for type as this would not pass the GraphQL validation if vals was not a list.

---

graphql/resolve/query_test.yaml, line 5 at r1 (raw file):

  gqlquery: |
    query {
      queryState(filter: {code: {in: ["abc", "def", "ghi"]}}) {

Add a case with both in and eq in an AND/OR condition