feat: Implement ECDSA key support for yahcli accounts create

[mhess-swl]

This PR adds a command line param to Yahcli's accounts create command, --keyType, that allows for creating accounts with either an ED25519 key (default) or an SECP256K1 ECDSA key. Its behavior should match the ED25519 case as closely as possible.

Further ECDSA support will be added in #17288.

Closes #17236

[codacy-production]

Coverage summary from Codacy

See diff coverage on Codacy

Coverage variation	Diff coverage
✅ +0.12% (target: -1.00%)	✅ 90.48%

Coverage variation details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Coverage
Common ancestor commit (70c450e)	96090	68316	71.10%
Head commit (814de3f)	96140 (+50)	68463 (+147)	71.21% (+0.12%)

Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: <coverage of head commit> - <coverage of common ancestor commit>

Diff coverage details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Diff coverage
Pull request (#17293)	42	38	90.48%

Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: <covered lines added or modified>/<coverable lines added or modified> * 100%

See your quality gate settings    Change summary preferences

_{Codacy stopped sending the deprecated coverage status on June 5th, 2024. Learn more}

[Nana-EC]

Thanks for the quick turn around.
One note on the naming confusion were we do ecdsa logic under an ed25519 class.
Also a request for an additional test.

[Nana-EC]

Is there a missing test in this PR for the new EC case?

[mhess-swl]

Yahcli doesn't have test cases, at least not in the traditional sense. Is there something specific you expected to see?

[Nana-EC]

I guess I was expecting a test that check the command work for the ECDSA case.
There would be a check for a valid account with a valid ECDSA key

[mhess-swl]

I guess I'm not sure I know what you're referring to. Yahcli doesn't have any automated tests. There are some very rudimentary shell scripts, but they look more like basic smoke tests; there are no automated tests set up to run in CI, and no suite of tests to run locally. Yahcli is written for exactly one customer (devops), and is essentially a hack that uses the existing hapi test framework; it's never been deemed worth having any automated testing. We did manually verify the new behavior in testnet, and this feature will presumably be used very soon by devops; I'm not sure how much better we can do with only one development day left.

I suppose we could write a new testing framework specifically for yahcli operations, but we definitely wouldn't be able to write it and get it set up quickly.

Are there other ideas for how we might write and run a quicker test?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 85.71429% with 6 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 67.35%. Comparing base (70c450e) to head (814de3f).
Report is 8 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
.../com/hedera/node/app/hapi/utils/keys/KeyUtils.java	85.00%	4 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main   #17293      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     67.24%   67.35%   +0.11%     
- Complexity    21991    22043      +52     
============================================
  Files          2583     2586       +3     
  Lines         96307    96384      +77     
  Branches      10054    10069      +15     
============================================
+ Hits          64763    64924     +161     
+ Misses        27839    27746      -93     
- Partials       3705     3714       +9     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
.../hedera/node/app/hapi/utils/keys/Ed25519Utils.java	100.00% <100.00%> (+6.45%)	⬆️
.../com/hedera/node/app/hapi/utils/keys/KeyUtils.java	85.00% <85.00%> (ø)

... and 30 files with indirect coverage changes