fix: Mark SAV and Lending transactions as NotDelegable

[yinyiqian1]

Any new transactions should be marked as NotDelegable, unless the interactions are fully tested and confirmed.

High Level Overview of Change

Context of Change

Type of Change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• Refactor (non-breaking change that only restructures code)
• Performance (increase or change in throughput and/or latency)
• Tests (you added tests for code that already exists, or your new feature included in this PR)
• Documentation update
• Chore (no impact to binary, e.g. .gitignore, formatting, dropping support for older tooling)
• Release

API Impact

• Public API: New feature (new methods and/or new fields)
• Public API: Breaking change (in general, breaking changes should only impact the next api_version)
• libxrpl change (any change that may affect libxrpl or dependents of libxrpl)
• Peer protocol change (must be backward compatible or bump the peer protocol version)

[ximinez]

I would not object if you added the "Trivial" label to this PR.

[yinyiqian1]

I would not object if you added the "Trivial" label to this PR.

It looks like some vault tests are related to delegation. I’ve removed them for now—please let me know if that’s okay with you. We can still add back if we want to support in the future.

[kennyzlei]

nit: would recommend adding a comment to this test to let others know that when they add a tx to this list that they make sure they have unit tested delegation with their feature

[yinyiqian1]

I just forced a delegable tx count check in a separate test case, which will contain those comments:
483a545
Any change to either adding/deleting a delegable tx, will trigger failure.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 79.8%. Comparing base (ce9ccf8) to head (a7a46e6).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           develop   #6489   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage     79.8%   79.8%           
=======================================
  Files          862     862           
  Lines        67883   67883           
  Branches      7550    7547    -3     
=======================================
+ Hits         54200   54203    +3     
+ Misses       13683   13680    -3     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
include/xrpl/protocol/detail/transactions.macro	100.0% <ø> (ø)

... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[Tapanito]

@ximinez should this go into Lending 1.1? If so, should the PR be against tapanito/lending-fix-amendment ?

[ximinez]

should this go into Lending 1.1? If so, should the PR be against tapanito/lending-fix-amendment ?

@Tapanito It could, but I don't think it needs to.

1. It is controlled by the delegation amendment, not lending 1.1. Because delegation is not yet supported, it can be changed without a separate amendment.
2. They're both going to the same place (develop). If lending-fix-amendment ends up not going to develop, it'll be moot because the delegation amendment is unsupported.
3. @yinyiqian1 wrote this under the auspices of delegation. It seems to be an inappropriate mixing of the two projects to put it under lending-fix-amendment.
4. Finally, if @yinyiqian1 has more delegation-related stuff to do, it will probably be completely irrelevant to lending. Having this fix off to the side in another branch is only going to cause unnecessary complexity.

[yinyiqian1]

@ximinez Can we merge it if it looks good to you?