Fix #13393 offer shows network's XCH like TXCH on testnet10

[yyolk]

Purpose:

Fixes #13393

#13393 is currently assigned to @paninaro however I picked it up thinking it was assigned to force the issue to stay open instead of being closed for staleness.
I also thought it'd be a relatively straight forward issue for me to contribute for 🤓

This PR is something I roughed in. I'm very open to changing anything about it.

It is rough like:

• I change print_offer_summary(...) signature
  • reasoning: getting config from load_config in again seemed like an anti-pattern in looking at how the lifecycle of commands would do that once at the top level
• I use AddressType.XCH.hrp() to get XCH||TXCH
  • reasoning: this seemed like a pretty straight forward method while I was looking for things that were reading the config, which would have the network information, take_offer(...) does already use this for generating the correct address
• I didn't dive in to see how this is handled elsewhere, to follow that pattern.
• I used a variable name called network_xch which I am not attached to and think there could be named something better

Current Behavior:

When using chia wallet take_offer on testnet10 the summary will print like:

Summary:
  OFFERED:
    - Testnet Dexie Bucks (Wallet ID: 3): 793.438 (793438 mojos)
  REQUESTED:
    - XCH (Wallet ID: 1): 1.00394 (1003940000000 mojos)

Included Fees: 0.00055 XCH, 550000000 mojos

or when there are royalties like:

Summary:
  OFFERED:
    - 3fb9955bcde745722ce913b74b26f1c18c9efe6c13db1d9ba5fe76e6e41efc31: 0.001 (1 mojo)
  REQUESTED:
    - XCH (Wallet ID: 1): 1e-09 (1000 mojos)

Royalties Summary:
  - For nft187ue2k7duazhyt8fzwm5kfh3cxxfalnvz0d3mxa9lemwdeq7lscstsjpsr:
    - 5E-11 XCH (50 mojos) to txch1nu0dulhuhczyf60upcqml379sq2tggprl4nt92x6unf0m2uc0vpsffqh5d

Total Amounts Requested:
  - 1.05E-9 XCH (1050 mojos)
Included Fees: 0 XCH, 0 mojos

New Behavior:

When using chia wallet take_offer on testnet10 the summary will print like:

Summary:
  OFFERED:
    - Testnet Dexie Bucks (Wallet ID: 3): 793.438 (793438 mojos)
  REQUESTED:
    - TXCH (Wallet ID: 1): 1.00394 (1003940000000 mojos)

Included Fees: 0.00055 TXCH, 550000000 mojos

and with royalties like:

Summary:
  OFFERED:
    - 3fb9955bcde745722ce913b74b26f1c18c9efe6c13db1d9ba5fe76e6e41efc31: 0.001 (1 mojo)
  REQUESTED:
    - TXCH (Wallet ID: 1): 1e-09 (1000 mojos)
Royalties Summary:
  - For nft187ue2k7duazhyt8fzwm5kfh3cxxfalnvz0d3mxa9lemwdeq7lscstsjpsr:
    - 5E-11 TXCH (50 mojos) to txch1nu0dulhuhczyf60upcqml379sq2tggprl4nt92x6unf0m2uc0vpsffqh5d
Total Amounts Requested:
  - 1.05E-9 TXCH (1050 mojos)
Included Fees: 0 TXCH, 0 mojos

Testing Notes:

The extent of my testing was running 2 offers with chia wallet take_offer -e offer...:
One I had from using the tibetswap v2 test, made up of CATs and TXCH
One I pulled from a recent dexie.space testnet NFT trade.

I did not run the test suite.

[paninaro]

Thanks for taking that issue @yyolk! Looks like there's a pre-commit failure caused by the black formatting tool. I think if you run black on the touched file it should reformat correclty.

I tested the code and it works well for me.

[yyolk]

@paninaro No problem! I've updated the branch after running black. Thank you as well for confirming it's working.

Let me know if you have any other suggestions, if any.

Also, I've become less worried about the variable name of network_xch and changing the signature to a module method print_offer_summary(...) after leaving it sit for a while - however I still defer to you and other reviewers with what would be most appropriate. I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other and I'm still acclimating in small bites every day to the codebase.

[paninaro]

LGTM. Thanks again!