Add generics of TransactionType for TxResponse

[tequdev]

High Level Overview of Change

Make Tx command response possible by specifying a transaction.

Type of Change

• [ x] Documentation Updates

[justinr1234]

@develoQ can you show the intended use case that isn’t possible today and how this helps?

[tequdev]

Additional commits have been made.

For example, it would be possible to provide a more detailed type for the response value of the submitAndWait method.

const paymentTx: Payment = {
...
}

const response = client.submitAndWait(paymentTx)

In this case, response will be resolved as TxResponse<Payment>, not TxResponse<Transaction>.

[ckniffen]

Please update https:/XRPLF/xrpl.js/blob/main/packages/xrpl/HISTORY.md.

[mvadari]

I was a bit worried that this would make DX more complicated, since users would need to do TxResponse<txtype> instead of TxResponse when constructing a new TxResponse, but users never need to construct a TxResponse themselves so it's fine.

Does the request definition need to be adjusted with this to return TxResponse<Transaction> instead of just TxResponse? Seems like we don't actually run a TypeScript check in our CI to confirm.

[tequdev]

I was a bit worried that this would make DX more complicated, since users would need to do TxResponse instead of TxResponse when constructing a new TxResponse, but users never need to construct a TxResponse themselves so it's fine.

Does the request definition need to be adjusted with this to return TxResponse instead of just TxResponse? Seems like we don't actually run a TypeScript check in our CI to confirm.

If TxResponse is specified, it is treated as TxResponse<Transaction>.

export interface TxResponse<T extends BaseTransaction = Transaction>
   extends BaseResponse {

The default value is set at = Transaction.