R4R: CLIContext Refactor

[jackzampolin]

Fixes: #3249 #3255 #3178 #2953 #2856

This PR is the follow up to #3320 and contains:

• A cleanup of unused methods and code in CLIContext
• Merges the client/utils package into client/context package
• Adds the auth.TxBuilder to the CLIContext object and ensures it is properly initialized at the times it is called.

I've also tried to add some comments explaining the code. Hopefully this helps reviewers.

• Wrote tests
• Updated relevant documentation (docs/)
• Added entries in PENDING.md with issue #
• rereviewed Files changed in the github PR explorer

---

For Admin Use:

• Added appropriate labels to PR (ex. wip, ready-for-review, docs)
• Reviewers Assigned
• Squashed all commits, uses message "Merge pull request #XYZ: [title]" (coding standards)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #3321 into develop will decrease coverage by 2.41%.
The diff coverage is 5.01%.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #3321      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    58.88%   56.47%   -2.42%     
===========================================
  Files          131      137       +6     
  Lines         9836    10247     +411     
===========================================
- Hits          5792     5787       -5     
- Misses        3669     4084     +415     
- Partials       375      376       +1

[jackzampolin]

CLIContext is once again treated as an immutable object. This PR is ready for review again.

[alessio]

IMO it should be TxBuilder to encapsulate a CLIContext - rationale:

1. CLIContext never calls TxBuilder methods. The opposite is true, thus TxBuilder should depend on CLIContext, not the contrary.
2. This introduces a dependency on github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/x/auth/client/txbuilder. Again, should be TxBuilder dependending on CLIContext

[jackzampolin]

Would be interested to hear other thoughts from the team @cosmos/cosmossdk

[cwgoes]

@alessio's points make sense to me - are there counterarguments?

[alexanderbez]

Totally agree here. I also think the fromName and fromAddress fields (and corresponding logic to get these values) should be moved into the TxBuilder.

[alessio]

In all honesti, I think we'd better keep CLIContext and TxBuilder separate to avoid establishing any unnecessary dependency link between the two. For sake of caller's convenience though, I'm OK with TxBuilder to encapsulate .CLIContext.

[alexanderbez]

Yeahhh, I really don't see a big reason for this PR then imho. Sure, the CLI context can be cleaned up a bit (some of which I'll be doing in #3396)

[alexanderbez]

Please allow me to review this prior to merging @jackzampolin (will do shortly).

[jackzampolin]

Well @alexanderbez sounds like theres no alignment here so I wouldn't merge anyway.

[jackzampolin]

Going to go ahead and close this in favor of other work on these same issues.