Simplify fee charging

[tinker-michaelj]

Related issue(s):
Closes #1461

Summary of the change:

• Replace the overly complicated ItemizableFeeCharging with a NarratedFeeCharging whose methods support exactly the charging actions that Services actually takes.
• Add some EETs using UncheckedSubmit to verify charging actions taken in case of a node not performing due diligence.
  • Add uncheckedSubmit=2-50 to dev/api-permission.properties to allow this.
• Extract a PolicyChargingAgent from AwareProcessLogic to encapsulate the choice of which charging actions to take.

External impacts:
None.

Applicable documentation

• Javadoc

[ljianghedera]

These two imports can be removed

[tinker-michaelj]

Removed.

[qnswirlds]

I think the charging policy needs to be revised. Please see inline comments.

[Neeharika-Sompalli]

Need to resolve newly introduced sonar issues(if any)

It compares to master...I addressed the issues and will check if it passes now...

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1516 (ab8449c) into master-plus-sdk-0.15.0-alpha.1 (aaee84b) will increase coverage by 0.04%.
The diff coverage is 90.44%.

@@                         Coverage Diff                          @@
##             master-plus-sdk-0.15.0-alpha.1    #1516      +/-   ##
====================================================================
+ Coverage                             91.27%   91.32%   +0.04%     
+ Complexity                             5876     5848      -28     
====================================================================
  Files                                   461      461              
  Lines                                 16897    16852      -45     
  Branches                               1781     1778       -3     
====================================================================
- Hits                                  15423    15390      -33     
+ Misses                                 1009      999      -10     
+ Partials                                465      463       -2     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...om/hedera/services/context/TransactionContext.java	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...era/services/ledger/accounts/BackingTokenRels.java	96.96% <ø> (-0.18%)	⬇️
...services/ledger/accounts/FCMapBackingAccounts.java	96.42% <ø> (ø)
...vices/legacy/services/state/AwareProcessLogic.java	34.69% <0.00%> (+4.33%)	⬆️
...ces/state/exports/SignedStateBalancesExporter.java	96.70% <ø> (-0.04%)	⬇️
...com/hedera/services/utils/PlatformTxnAccessor.java	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...in/java/com/hedera/services/utils/TxnAccessor.java	0.00% <ø> (ø)
...services/fees/charging/NarratedLedgerCharging.java	85.33% <85.33%> (ø)
...a/com/hedera/services/context/ServicesContext.java	93.73% <88.88%> (+0.26%)	⬆️
...dera/services/context/AwareTransactionContext.java	100.00% <100.00%> (+0.82%)	⬆️
... and 11 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update aaee84b...ab8449c. Read the comment docs.

[qnswirlds]

So this function will charge the submitting node up to the network fee as a penalty for not performing basic due diligence or for submitting a duplicate transaction with another node? I know some of the function names have enough details, but some of them may still need javadoc to explain.

[qnswirlds]

LGTM, other than maybe adding some javadoc.

[abhishek-hedera]

the + could be removed for adjustBalance.

[ljianghedera]

So the logic here is that if the payer offers a large amount of fee willing to pay, but it actually has almost zero balance, in this cause, the submitting node will be charged and the payer walked away with nothing to lose?

[tinker-michaelj]

The node should check that the payer will be able to afford the network fee before it submits the txn...if it doesn't check, it is penalized for this lack of "due diligence".

[ljianghedera]

I see. If it does and the transaction goes through, the submitting node will get reward as compensation.

[ljianghedera]

LGTM