Escrow account initialization

[has5aan]

What was the problem?

This PR resolves #8165

How was it solved?

Added escrow initialisation in sidechain registration command execution.
Added check for receiving chain id in transfer cross chain command.
Added check for receiving chain id in initializeEscrowAccount
Added zero balance check in lock and unlock token module method.

As per the issue details;

Fix payMessageFee method in token module as PR.

payMessageFee method in token module didn't require any changes.

How was it tested?

Implemented unit tests.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #8247 (3fd078d) into development (84fbbfa) will increase coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is 95.83%.

❗ Current head 3fd078d differs from pull request most recent head 73ebe52. Consider uploading reports for the commit 73ebe52 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@               Coverage Diff               @@
##           development    #8247      +/-   ##
===============================================
+ Coverage        83.06%   83.09%   +0.02%     
===============================================
  Files              589      589              
  Lines            21807    21810       +3     
  Branches          3185     3192       +7     
===============================================
+ Hits             18115    18122       +7     
+ Misses            3692     3688       -4     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...k/src/modules/interoperability/mainchain/module.ts	89.79% <0.00%> (ø)
...erability/mainchain/commands/register_sidechain.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...src/modules/token/commands/transfer_cross_chain.ts	96.72% <100.00%> (+0.11%)	⬆️
framework/src/modules/token/method.ts	96.72% <100.00%> (+0.21%)	⬆️

... and 8 files with indirect coverage changes

[gkoumout]

Looks good. However some parts of the LIP PR were overlooked in the corresponding issue, so I added comments on things to be added.

Also, I don't understand why no change was needed in payMessageFee. Was the implementation not aligned with the previous protocol?

[has5aan]

Also, I don't understand why no change was needed in payMessageFee. Was the implementation not aligned with the previous protocol?

To the best of my knowledge the changes recommended by the LIP for payMessageFee are aligned with the current implementation.