Handle smart groups created in previous Civi's which include relation_permission

[highfalutin]

Overview

Fixes https://lab.civicrm.org/dev/core/issues/390: Smart groups created before 5.5.0 using "relation_permission" break on upgrade to 5.5.0

Before

• In Civi 5.4, create a smart group based on a relationship search.
• Upgrade to 5.5, clear cache and try to open the group.
• Error: DB Error: syntax error

After

• In Civi 5.4, create a smart group based on a relationship search.
• Upgrade to 5.5, clear cache and try to open the group.
• Group opens as expected.

Technical Details

When you create a Smart Group for a relationship search, the form values which are saved include relation_permission. Prior to 5.5.0, the operator was "=" and the value was scalar. As of 5.5.0, the operator is "IN" and the value is an array.

[seamuslee001]

It would be great if we could get a unit test on this. @highfalutin are you able to do a second PR against the now 5.6 branch please as well

[highfalutin]

@seamuslee001 I'd love to write a test but I'm not sure how too, as this involves an upgrade.

[seamuslee001]

@highfalutin what i would be thinking is something like this https://github.com/civicrm/civicrm-core/blob/master/tests/phpunit/CRM/Contact/BAO/QueryTest.php#L391 but of course for your specific field

[highfalutin]

5.6 PR: #12804.

[totten]

jenkins, test this please

[totten]

(CiviCRM Review Template WORD-1.1)

• (r-explain) Pass
• (r-test) Pass: The failures in JobProcessMailingTest are a general/pre-existing issue affecting test-runs since the recent server rebuild.
• (r-code) Pass: @eileenmcnaughton gave a general sign-off on the code in the 5.6 variant. (That PR is currently blocked on a test re-run.)
• (r-doc) Pass: I added a release-note in v5.5.1 - Bump number. Draft release notes. #12805.
• (r-maint) Soft Pass: We need to get the regression fix shipped. We can assess maintainability improvement as part of after-action analysis.
• (r-run) Undecided: I'm doing this now. If I subsequently merge it, you take that as a sign it worked out. ;) Pass: Tested with the procedure described by Noah. That seems like a good procedure. Additionally, to hedge against regressions, I created some other smart-groups (purely in 5.5; with and without relationships) and did some cache-flushes. With the patch, all those cases worked as expected.
• (r-user) Pass
• (r-tech) Pass: Makes the inputs more forgiving