Keychain: adds support for private keys as non-array

[macor161]

🦅 Pull Request Description

• Adds support for a single key (non-array) from mainnet_key.json or rinkeby_key.json file.

Rational

Multiple users have reported that the Buidler plugin didn't work after switching from aragonCLI. It turns out they had a key file that contained a single key, not in an array.

[sohkai]

Ah, rather than importing this from lodash, we can just use Array.isArray().

[macor161]

Good point!

[macor161]

Tests seem to be failing because of #168

[sohkai]

We might need to update their package.jsons/yarn.locks, in a similar manner to aragon/client#1434.

But are we not installing the tests via yarn? The lock files should be preventing errors.

[macor161]

@sohkai

We might need to update their package.jsons/yarn.locks, in a similar manner to aragon/client#1434.

Yes this is exactly the problem.

But are we not installing the tests via yarn? The lock files should be preventing errors.

No we use a pretty old version of the client, which doesn't have any yarn.lock or package-lock.json file unfortunately, commit 775edd606333a111eb2693df53900039722a95dc.
Until issue 1368 is fixed, I could perhaps push a git tag or a branch that contains a patch for this commit.

[sohkai]

Ohhh gotcha; this is also due to the client?

I thought the tests were having trouble building each app's frontend.

[macor161]

Yes, seems like they fail because of this client bug. We can see the specific error message here: https://github.com/aragon/buidler-aragon/pull/169/checks?check_run_id=735557814#step:7:425

[dapplion]

Could we pull the built client from somewhere (e.g. IPFS or Github releases) instead of building it locally?

[macor161]

@dapplion Yes I think the idea was to move to Github releases but we currently can't use them as they contain a bug in development. When the issue is fixed, I definitely think it would be a good idea.

[dapplion]

I'm a firm believer that the client should not have to be built multiple times. Configuration should be handled at another layer, which would allow reusing the content in APM for all possible needs

[sohkai]

@macor161 I've merged this branch with master, now that we have the hotfix in place.

---

I'm a firm believer that the client should not have to be built multiple times. Configuration should be handled at another layer, which would allow reusing the content in APM for all possible needs

Definitely agree; I've made #175 for this separately.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #169 into master will decrease coverage by 1.04%.
The diff coverage is 0.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #169      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   54.71%   53.66%   -1.05%     
==========================================
  Files          70       71       +1     
  Lines        1380     1407      +27     
  Branches      206      212       +6     
==========================================
  Hits          755      755              
- Misses        564      591      +27     
  Partials       61       61              

Flag	Coverage Δ
#unittests	53.66% <0.00%> (-1.05%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/config/mnemonic.ts	58.06% <0.00%> (-1.94%)	⬇️
src/utils/appInstaller/index.ts	12.08% <0.00%> (-4.58%)	⬇️
.prettierrc.js	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update b3f52a9...fed0750. Read the comment docs.