add support of dynamic fee transaction

[libotony]

No description provided.

[socket-security]

Review the following changes in direct dependencies. Learn more about Socket for GitHub.

Diff	Package	Supply Chain Security	Vulnerability	Quality	Maintenance	License
	elliptic@​6.6.1

View full report

[coveralls]

coverage: 96.646% (+0.3%) from 96.395%
when pulling 82c301c on tony/dynamic-fee
into db98f9c on master.

[vanja-vechain]

LGTM, tested on both testnet and galactica dev net. Legacy tx works as expected on testnet and both legacy and dynamic work fine on galactica dev net

[vanja-vechain]

@paologalligit this one is to be reviewed if you have some time

[paologalligit]

@paologalligit this one is to be reviewed if you have some time

oh, I reviewed the pr on tony's repo 😅

[darrenvechain]

Seems the types are a bit messed up (first screenshot), missing the coef or the fees data. Wonder is there any need for generics or something (see code snippet + last screenshot)

export class Transaction <T extends Transaction.Body = Transaction.Body> {

    public readonly body: T
    
    constructor(body: T) {
        this.body = body
        if (body.type) {
            this.type = body.type
        } else {
            this.type = Transaction.Type.Legacy
        }
    }

[libotony]

Seems the types are a bit messed up (first screenshot), missing the coef or the fees data. Wonder is there any need for generics or something (see code snippet + last screenshot)

```ts export class Transaction {

public readonly body: T

constructor(body: T) {
    this.body = body
    if (body.type) {
        this.type = body.type
    } else {
        this.type = Transaction.Type.Legacy
    }
}

<img alt="image" width="885" src="https://private-user-images.githubusercontent.com/107671032/441777042-4b3e76a6-e81f-45c6-ba3b-9675f8c9bbb3.png?jwt=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpc3MiOiJnaXRodWIuY29tIiwiYXVkIjoicmF3LmdpdGh1YnVzZXJjb250ZW50LmNvbSIsImtleSI6ImtleTUiLCJleHAiOjE3NDY3NjU5MzcsIm5iZiI6MTc0Njc2NTYzNywicGF0aCI6Ii8xMDc2NzEwMzIvNDQxNzc3MDQyLTRiM2U3NmE2LWU4MWYtNDVjNi1iYTNiLTk2NzVmOGM5YmJiMy5wbmc_WC1BbXotQWxnb3JpdGhtPUFXUzQtSE1BQy1TSEEyNTYmWC1BbXotQ3JlZGVudGlhbD1BS0lBVkNPRFlMU0E1M1BRSzRaQSUyRjIwMjUwNTA5JTJGdXMtZWFzdC0xJTJGczMlMkZhd3M0X3JlcXVlc3QmWC1BbXotRGF0ZT0yMDI1MDUwOVQwNDQwMzdaJlgtQW16LUV4cGlyZXM9MzAwJlgtQW16LVNpZ25hdHVyZT1kODdiMTE5YWFkOTVjOWRhNjEyZWQ4MDg5ZmM4MDk2Y2YxODYxNDZjZjNhNTg3YTM3MWRlODBmNWQ5NGQ0ZWNlJlgtQW16LVNpZ25lZEhlYWRlcnM9aG9zdCJ9.07T-AyA_F87kpAZBeplcxgzsPSY5KpZztpzTksK8Kx0">

Nice catch! Appended in the new commit, please take a look.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate failed

Failed conditions
0.0% Coverage on New Code (required ≥ 80%)

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud