Add XRPL payment transaction examples for normal and multi-signing accounts.

[dzmitryhil]

The examples will be used later for the client.

---

This change is 

[wojtek-coreum]

Reviewed 4 of 4 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @dzmitryhil, @miladz68, and @ysv)

---

relayer/client/xrpl/examples/examples_test.go line 27 at r1 (raw file):

	ecdsaKeyType = rippledata.ECDSA

	seedPhrase1 = "ssWU9edn2TGCByJAa6CXbAAsCkNzQ" // 0 key : rwPpi6BnAxvvEu75m8GtGtFRDFvMAUuiG3

Aren't these addresses? You pass them to NewSeedFromAddress function

---

relayer/client/xrpl/examples/examples_test.go line 51 at r1 (raw file):

	t.Logf("Recipient account: %s", recipientAccount)

	// send XRP coins from issuer to recipient (if account is new you need to send 10 XRP to active it)

to activate it

[dzmitryhil]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @miladz68, @wojtek-coreum, and @ysv)

---

relayer/client/xrpl/examples/examples_test.go line 27 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, wojtek-coreum (Wojtek) wrote…

Aren't these addresses? You pass them to NewSeedFromAddress function

That how the function is called :-) Those strings are seeds.

---

relayer/client/xrpl/examples/examples_test.go line 51 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, wojtek-coreum (Wojtek) wrote…

to activate it

Done.

[wojtek-coreum]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @miladz68 and @ysv)

[ysv]

Reviewed 3 of 4 files at r1, 1 of 1 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @dzmitryhil and @miladz68)

---

relayer/client/xrpl/examples/examples_test.go line 166 at r2 (raw file):

	// build payment tx using function to prevent signing function mutations
	buildXrpPaymentTx := func() rippledata.Payment {

nit:
any specific reason to keep this func defined inside TestMultisigPayment ?

---

relayer/client/xrpl/examples/examples_test.go line 256 at r2 (raw file):

	// update base settings
	base := tx.GetBase()
	fee, err := rippledata.NewValue("100", true)

nit:

everyone usually use 12 drops for most txs
But for multisig each extra signature costs 10 drops https://xrpl.org/transaction-cost.html#special-transaction-costs

I think for this examples it is ok to use 100 as hardcoded
But inside bridge txs we should consider it iMO

---

relayer/client/xrpl/examples/examples_test.go line 263 at r2 (raw file):

}

func submitTx(t *testing.T, remote *ripplewebsockets.Remote, tx rippledata.Transaction) error {

nit: IMO it is reasonable for this func to return txid also
But for example code having it as it is now is ok

[ysv]

Reviewed all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @dzmitryhil and @miladz68)

[dzmitryhil]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @miladz68 and @ysv)

---

relayer/client/xrpl/examples/examples_test.go line 166 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, ysv (Yaroslav Savchuk) wrote…

nit:
any specific reason to keep this func defined inside TestMultisigPayment ?

Yes, the sign functions mutate the transaction, but we need that same for each singer, that's why we have a function that produces the transaction and prevents the signing of the mutated transaction.

---

relayer/client/xrpl/examples/examples_test.go line 256 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, ysv (Yaroslav Savchuk) wrote…

nit:

everyone usually use 12 drops for most txs
But for multisig each extra signature costs 10 drops https://xrpl.org/transaction-cost.html#special-transaction-costs

I think for this examples it is ok to use 100 as hardcoded
But inside bridge txs we should consider it iMO

Right, that is just and example. I added today to must have items to include tx-fees computation. Since it's required to be computed before we sign the tx.

---

relayer/client/xrpl/examples/examples_test.go line 263 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, ysv (Yaroslav Savchuk) wrote…

nit: IMO it is reasonable for this func to return txid also
But for example code having it as it is now is ok

If the txid is tx hash - we don't need it, since the tx after the signing already have it.

[ysv]

Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @miladz68)