feat(vm): save in database the input and output of InternalTransactions

[roseshahar]

What does this PR do?
Add input (data) and output of InternalTransactions (i.e. traces in EVM)

You can learn about the attributes of a trace here

Why are these changes required?
Since TRON doesn't save these specific fields in its database, indexers are unable to fetch very important actions that happen inside the network, like function calls and contract deployments via factories.

This PR has been tested by:

• Manual Testing

Follow up

Extra details

[lxcmyf]

Thanks for your PR

However, this change has already involved the adjustment of protocol layer behavior. According to the governance process of TRON, any change related to the agreement needs to be submitted and discussed with the corresponding TIP (TRON Improvement Proposal) first. After the community reaches a consensus, it will enter the code implementation phase.

At present, no TIP or community discussion record corresponding to this PR has been seen, so this PR does not meet the entry conditions. It is recommended that you start a TIP and specify the background, motivation, compatibility impact and upgrade scheme of the change. After the TIP is discussed and approved, we can continue to promote the implementation of the code level.

[roseshahar]

@lxcmyf Thank you for your time!

I have opened a TIP PR: tronprotocol/tips#817

Also - are you sure that this is a protocol layer change? This PR only changes how the specific java-tron node implementation saves data in its internal datastore

[lvs0075]

This feature primarily involves changes to the storage protocol, so it requires thorough discussion within the community：tronprotocol/tips#816 (comment).

[halibobo1205]

Thanks for the contribution! The idea of exposing internal transaction input/output for indexers is valuable.

However, it looks like there are still some open questions in the related TIP discussion (tronprotocol/tips#816) — notably the pending 200K-block storage validation and the community consensus on configuration approach.

Would you mind converting this PR to draft status for now? Once the outstanding items in the TIP discussion are resolved and a consensus is reached, it would be great to move this forward. This way the PR won't get stale review cycles in the meantime.

Happy to re-review once the TIP discussion concludes!