Add transaction timestamp to Subscription output #370

[th1nkNXT]

• I assumed that there is always an existing transaction (or unconfirmed transaction) (transactionId = subscriptionId).
• I implemented the additional tx information only for the mentioned endpoint getSubscription.
• I introduced a new AccountDto class which is delivered in the JSON data as a possible future improvement of the data format and code.
• That means ALL subscription JSON objects deliver now a senderAccount object and a recipientAccount object.
• This data is now redundant to be backward compatible but you could think about that to go for a new API version in the future.
• I wrote a test to ensure that the JSON data is correctly created (and still backward compatible).
• I added Lombok to the maven pom to reduce boilerplate code. That means when integrating my changes you and other devs need to install the Lombok plugin into your IDE.
• You should then have a look at my code, maybe there are some things to use for future developments (e.g. using a data transfer object class).

example data (old): {"id":"9223372036854775807","sender":"123456789","senderRS":"BURST-RMAP-225P-CQQP-22222", "recipient":"23456789","recipientRS":"BURST-DV2P-222Q-DTX3-22222", "amountNQT":"321","frequency":4,"timeNext":5} example data (new): {"id":"9223372036854775807","sender":"123456789","senderRS":"BURST-RMAP-225P-CQQP-22222","senderAccount":{"id":"123456789","idRS":"BURST-RMAP-225P-CQQP-22222"},"recipient":"23456789","recipientRS":"BURST-DV2P-222Q-DTX3-22222","recipientAccount":{"id":"23456789","idRS":"BURST-DV2P-222Q-DTX3-22222"},"amountNQT":"321","frequency":4,"timeNext":5,"timestamp":1623878907,"blockTimestamp":1623878900}

[ohager]

@jjos2372 is this something relevant?! PR is stale already... maybe we can close it

[frankTheTank72]

@ohager do we still need this change or will we cover that in a different way - now we have the Openaapi ?

[frankTheTank72]

added to 3.5.2 beta2

[ohager]

Stale.... and very old! I think we updated that differenlty already after so long time. @jjos2372 Closing?! I recommend.

We should be better on reviews by other contributors.

[ohager]

Close due to stale. Hurts me a bit to see a PR pending for so much time, and finally not accepting a community members contribution... but bigger changes are coming in. We might review the idea of adding more info to subscriptions.