feat: WM on Test wallet

[sanducb]

Context

• closes #1358
• closes #1357

This PR introduces changes that will allow creation of asset scale 9 wallet addresses by default and all WM accounting logic is removed as there will be no difference between payment pointers. Rapyd will only take into account asset scale 2 (this is unchanged) while we also keep track of an asset scale 9 "virtual" balance in our wallet's db. This virtual balance is separated into incomingBalance and outgoingBalance for each PP. Whenever scale 9 incoming or outgoing transfers add up to the lowest amount representable in scale 2 (i.e. 0.01), then Rapyd balance is updated. This is similar to the previous WM accounting logic, but it now applies to all transactions.

Changes TLDR;

• Allowing creation of asset scale 9 wallet addresses by default
• Deleted WM accounting logic, wallet addresses are WM ready by default
• Added virtual balance logic for dealing with scale 9 amounts

Important questions

• Should we drop incomingBalance and outgoingBalance columns from walletAddresses table and move them to accounts table?
• Should we drop debt column in the accounts table?

[Tymmmy]

Something has happened with the quotes:

All the values are 0 and if you click send it is Internal Server error.

[beniaminmunteanu]

Regarding question nr 1.: Caching Wallet Addresses that are in use for WM is still a good ideea for latency, since in WM cases, we end up fetching the wallet address with a much higher frequency. Since we would not have anything that differentiates Wallet addresses that are in use in WM to ones that are not, I think an LRU cache would achieve the same goal here?

On nr 2 and 3, tbh I don't know how those fields are used in order to answer.

Thoughts? @dragosp1011 @raducristianpopa

[Tymmmy]

Fee still is 0.... :(

[sanducb]

I'll take another look at the frontend to make sure that every amount displayed is properly formatted with a single shared function instead of the already existing code that I added for doing that which is not clean. I'll update the PR with the refactor.

[domin191013]

What will happen if we cache a WA, then update it, and then fetch it again before its expiry time has passed?

[dragosp1011]

What will happen if we cache a WA, then update it, and then fetch it again before its expiry time has passed?

there are 2 options is this case: 1. invalidate the cache on update or 2. cache the WA after update

[domin191013]

@sanducb please be aware that change the scale here too.

[Tymmmy]

We will cherry pick the useful code we need from this. Integrating Gatehub sandbox and replacing Rapyd, sadly made this story n0t needed anymore, as only asset code 2 will be supported.