[RND-1019] Parse received optimized configs

[nikola-nedic-sa]

This change fixes the issue where optimised config is sent to client and the client doesn't recognise the type properly causing it to crash. All digits were treated as ints and class names as strings. This change cast appropriate properties to long, short and class.

How Has This Been Tested?
Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Please also note any relevant details for your test configuration.

The code has been compiled in Jenkins pipeline to a .jar file. That file has been included to my local testing project that uses the lib to create clients. I tried many different configs including ones to be treated as short, long and class by the lib.

Checklist:

• I have performed a self-review of my code
• I have made corresponding changes to the knowledge base (if needed)
• My changes generate no new warnings
• I have verified that the specification is met and all functionalities are working as expected
• I resolved conflicts

Reviewer Score - 100%

• Meeting Task Specifications (50%)

  • This includes both UI design and backend functionality.
  • Ensure that the task requirements are fully met and that the implementation aligns with the specifications provided.

• Attention to Edge Cases (10%)

  • Identify and handle edge cases that may not be immediately obvious.
  • Demonstrate thorough testing and consideration of potential issues.

• Writing Performant and Efficient Code (10%)

  • Optimize the code for performance and efficiency.
  • Avoid unnecessary computations and strive for optimal resource usage.

• Addressing Feedback from Previous Code Reviews (10%)

  • Act on feedback provided in previous code reviews.
  • Show improvement and a proactive approach to learning from past reviews.

• Adherence to Coding Conventions (5%)

  • Follow the established coding standards and guidelines.
  • Maintain consistency in style and structure throughout the codebase.

• Writing Readable Code (5%)

  • Write code that is easy to read and understand.
  • Use clear and meaningful variable names, and include comments where necessary.

• Considering Aspects Not Explicitly Mentioned in the Specification (5%)

  • Demonstrate initiative by considering aspects that may not be explicitly mentioned in the task specification.
  • Enhance the implementation by thinking beyond the basic requirements.

• Completing Pull Request Form (2.5%)

  • Demonstrate initiative by considering aspects that may not be explicitly mentioned in the task specification.
  • Enhance the implementation by thinking beyond the basic requirements.

• Up to 2 Cycles of Code Review (2.5%)

  • Engage in up to two cycles of code review to refine and improve the code.
  • Incorporate suggestions and resolve any identified issues.