add publicKeyJwk as valid verificationMethod

[mmatteo23]

Potential missing of verificationMethod.publicKeyJwk in getEthereumAddress() Otherwise without this the method doesn't call extractPublicKeyBytes() that is able to manage this type of VerificationMethod.

Linking to an issue provides some context and a reason for the PR to be reviewed, as well as simplifying the release
notes and changelogs that get generated automatically. If an issue is linked like this it will be automatically closed
when the PR is merged.

What is being changed

A clear description of what this PR brings.

Quality

Check all that apply:

• I want these changes to be integrated
• I successfully ran yarn, yarn build, yarn test, yarn test:browser locally.
• I allow my PR to be updated by the reviewers (to speed up the review process).
• I added unit tests.
• I added integration tests.
• I did not add automated tests because _________, and I am aware that a PR without tests will likely get rejected.

Details

If applicable, add screen captures, error messages or stack traces to help explain your problem.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1096 (934d175) into next (125bf42) will decrease coverage by 0.20%.
The diff coverage is 78.57%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             next    #1096      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   80.25%   80.04%   -0.21%     
==========================================
  Files         118      132      +14     
  Lines        4056     4741     +685     
  Branches      875     1017     +142     
==========================================
+ Hits         3255     3795     +540     
- Misses        798      946     +148     
+ Partials        3        0       -3     

[mirceanis]

This looks good, do you want to add anything else to the fix?
If not, please mark it as ready for review and I'll merge it

[mmatteo23]

I actually also wrote a simple associated test, but since the tests are not all executed correctly I was waiting for feedback on this issue (#1098) before proceeding with the review.
@mirceanis if you think that it looks good then I will also upload the test and proceed anyway

[mirceanis]

Looks great, thank you for the contribution!