Incorrect(Unscaled) deposits are used to check bucket bankruptcy in forgive bad debt

[prateek105]

Description

• Fixed bucket bankruptcy check in forgiving bad debt to use scaled deposits instead of unscaled deposits.

Purpose

• Unscaled deposits were used to check bucket bankruptcy which can lead to wrong bucket bankruptcy even with a reasonable amount of deposits in it.
• Solves for https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-09-ajna-judging/issues/25

Impact

• Small increase in settle gas cost.

Tasks

• [ ] Changes to protocol contracts are covered by unit tests executed by CI.
• [X] Protocol contract size limits have not been exceeded.
• [X] Gas consumption for impacted transactions has been compared with the target branch, and nontrivial changes are cited in the Impact section above.
• [X] Scope labels have been assigned as appropriate.
• [X] Invariant tests have been manually executed as appropriate for the nature of the change.

[EdNoepel]

There's overlap with this change and Sherlock 41. Awaiting @mattcushman 's input on that.

I see Matt has opined on that in the comments. Might warrant further discussion.

[prateek105]

LGTM, do we need to add a unit test for this?

I tried adding a unit test for this scenario but was unable to simulate because to simulate a significant difference between scaled and unscaled amount I will need to skip a lot of time and if I do that the accrueInterest overflows. But we do have tests that cover this branch so it is part of code coverage already, for these reasons I think we can ignore a separate unit test for this.