Support key/rm and key/rename

[richardschneider]

Needed for ipfs/js-ipfs#1133

[daviddias]

@richardschneider would you be so kind of standardizing the ipfs.key and ipfs.crypt APIs through https://github.com/ipfs/interface-ipfs-core while you are implementing it in both js-ipfs and js-ipfs-api?

[richardschneider]

@diasdavid yes this is today's task.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #641 into master will decrease coverage by 0.04%.
The diff coverage is 75%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #641      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   84.22%   84.18%   -0.05%     
==========================================
  Files         119      121       +2     
  Lines        1775     1783       +8     
==========================================
+ Hits         1495     1501       +6     
- Misses        280      282       +2

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/key/index.js	100% <ø> (ø)	⬆️
src/key/rm.js	75% <75%> (ø)
src/key/rename.js	75% <75%> (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 0ef587a...e532bc9. Read the comment docs.

[daviddias]

@richardschneider released interface-ipfs-core with new test, make sure to test with latest deps

[richardschneider]

@diasdavid The added tests should be failing because js-ipfs does not yet support the Key API. The PR ipfs/js-ipfs#1133 needs to be merged. The PR relies upon ipfs/js-ipfs-repo#156 and an NPM release of js-libp2p-keychain.

Its the old chicken and egg problem.

[daviddias]

The added tests should be failing because js-ipfs

@richardschneider this is the js-ipfs-api PR, not js-ipfs.

[richardschneider]

Yes, I now which repo I'm making changes to. js-ipfs-api runs the tests from interface-ipfs-core which in-turn need an"ipfs server" (either js-ipfs or go-ipfs).

[richardschneider]

@diasdavid any comments?

[daviddias]

@richardschneider can we get CI green?

[daviddias]

@richardschneider one test is failing:

  1) .key
       .rm
         removes a key:

      Uncaught AssertionError: expected [] to have a length of 1 but got 0
      + expected - actual

      -0
      +1
      
      at ipfs.key.rm (node_modules/interface-ipfs-core/src/key.js:126:36)
      at f (node_modules/once/once.js:25:25)
      at streamToValue (src/utils/stream-to-json-value.js:4:300)
      at data (src/utils/stream-to-value.js:3:168)
      at ConcatStream.<anonymous> (node_modules/concat-stream/index.js:36:43)
      at finishMaybe (node_modules/readable-stream/lib/_stream_writable.js:607:14)
      at afterWrite (node_modules/readable-stream/lib/_stream_writable.js:470:3)
      at _combinedTickCallback (internal/process/next_tick.js:144:11)
      at process._tickCallback (internal/process/next_tick.js:180:9)

[richardschneider]

@diasdavid Once ipfs-inactive/interface-js-ipfs-core#185 is merged. The above test will work.

[daviddias]

@richardschneider watch out for the wording used in PR's.

The "fix" here:

Closed this PR by mistake.

[richardschneider]

@diasdavid Please provide the wording you like.

[daviddias]

@richardschneider it doesn't matter if I like it or not, it is just how Github works. You say "fix X" and Github will close it if merged.