fix(cmc): readOffer must use streams not streamIds on events.get

[perki]

Problem

readOffer (components/pryv-cmc/src/index.js:553-556) calls events.get with {streamIds: [NS_INTERNAL + ':offer'], limit: 1}. The api-server's events.get schema rejects this with:

{"id":"invalid-parameters-format",
 "data":[{"code":"OBJECT_ADDITIONAL_PROPERTIES","params":["streamIds"]}]}

events.get takes streams (recursive read filter); streamIds is the events.create write target. Every readOffer call fails against every deploy.

The four other events.get callers in this file (listInvites:374-375, waitForAccept:445-446, listAcceptedRelationships:827-828, acceptScopeUpdate:982) all already use streams correctly — this is an isolated typo.

Fix

Change streamIds → streams in readOffer. 1-line behavioural change plus a clarifying comment.

Visible impact pre-fix

Any caller of cmc.readOffer(capabilityUrl) throws on the first await. Patient apps can't peek the offer (display title/description/permissions) before clicking accept. HDS's plan-59 Phase-5a UX needs this primitive to render the offer-preview screen.

Test

No new tests in this PR — the existing cmc.test.js suite mocks Connection.apiOne and doesn't exercise the wire-shape, so the schema mismatch slipped past unit coverage. The downstream behavior is exercised end-to-end against a deployed open-pryv.io via HDS's _plans/59-pryv-cmc-integration-atwork/tests/08-sdk-handshake.js (PASS post-fix).

If you'd like, I can add a contract test that asserts the underlying Connection call uses streams — let me know.

[codecov]

Welcome to Codecov 🎉

Once you merge this PR into your default branch, you're all set! Codecov will compare coverage reports and display results in all future pull requests.

Thanks for integrating Codecov - We've got you covered ☂️

[perki]

Merged into master at 5f53ab9 (2 commits: 3b2e6f4, 5f53ab9).

Added a follow-up commit (5f53ab9) with a contract test that stubs pryv.Connection so the inner apiOne('events.get', …) wire-shape can be asserted. The same shape of test would have caught this typo at unit-test time.

Thanks!