Price Discovery Fix Pt. 1

[jalextowle]

Resolved Issues

Addresses a component of #1000.

Description

https://hackmd.io/yMNxotdqRKSuNrac9w8uFw?view

Review Checklists

Please check each item before approving the pull request. While going through the checklist, it is recommended to leave comments on items that are referenced in the checklist to make sure that they are reviewed. If there are multiple reviewers, copy the checklists into sections titled ## [Reviewer Name]. If the PR doesn't touch Solidity and/or Rust, the corresponding checklist can be removed.

@jrhea

• [ ] Tokens
  • [ ] Do all approve calls use forceApprove?
  • [ ] Do all transfer calls use safeTransfer?
  • [ ] Do all transferFrom calls use msg.sender as the from address?
    • [ ] If not, is the function access restricted to prevent unauthorized token spend?
• [ ] Low-level calls (call, delegatecall, staticcall, transfer, send)
  • [ ] Is the returned success boolean checked to handle failed calls?
  • [ ] If using delegatecall, are there strict access controls on the addresses that can be called? It shouldn't be possible to delegatecall arbitrary addresses, so the list of possible targets should either be immutable or tightly controlled by an admin.
• [ ] Reentrancy
  • [ ] Are functions that make external calls or transfer ether marked as nonReentrant?
    • [ ] If not, is there documentation that explains why reentrancy is not a concern or how it's mitigated?
• [ ] Gas Optimizations
  • [ ] Is the logic as simple as possible?
  • [ ] Are the storage values that are used repeatedly cached in stack or memory variables?
  • [ ] If loops are used, are there guards in place to avoid out-of-gas issues?
• [ ] Visibility
  • [ ] Are all payable functions restricted to avoid stuck ether?
• [ ] Math
  • [ ] Is all of the arithmetic checked or guarded by if-statements that will catch underflows?
  • [ ] If Safe functions are altered, are potential underflows and overflows caught so that a failure flag can be thrown?
  • [ ] Are all of the rounding directions clearly documented?
• [ ] Testing
  • [ ] Are there new or updated unit or integration tests?
  • [ ] Do the tests cover the happy paths?
  • [ ] Do the tests cover the unhappy paths?
  • [ ] Are there an adequate number of fuzz tests to ensure that we are covering the full input space?

@mcclurejt

• [ ] Tokens
  • [ ] Do all approve calls use forceApprove?
  • [ ] Do all transfer calls use safeTransfer?
  • [ ] Do all transferFrom calls use msg.sender as the from address?
    • [ ] If not, is the function access restricted to prevent unauthorized token spend?
• [ ] Low-level calls (call, delegatecall, staticcall, transfer, send)
  • [ ] Is the returned success boolean checked to handle failed calls?
  • [ ] If using delegatecall, are there strict access controls on the addresses that can be called? It shouldn't be possible to delegatecall arbitrary addresses, so the list of possible targets should either be immutable or tightly controlled by an admin.
• [ ] Reentrancy
  • [ ] Are functions that make external calls or transfer ether marked as nonReentrant?
    • [ ] If not, is there documentation that explains why reentrancy is not a concern or how it's mitigated?
• [ ] Gas Optimizations
  • [ ] Is the logic as simple as possible?
  • [ ] Are the storage values that are used repeatedly cached in stack or memory variables?
  • [ ] If loops are used, are there guards in place to avoid out-of-gas issues?
• [ ] Visibility
  • [ ] Are all payable functions restricted to avoid stuck ether?
• [ ] Math
  • [ ] Is all of the arithmetic checked or guarded by if-statements that will catch underflows?
  • [ ] If Safe functions are altered, are potential underflows and overflows caught so that a failure flag can be thrown?
  • [ ] Are all of the rounding directions clearly documented?
• [ ] Testing
  • [ ] Are there new or updated unit or integration tests?
  • [ ] Do the tests cover the happy paths?
  • [ ] Do the tests cover the unhappy paths?
  • [ ] Are there an adequate number of fuzz tests to ensure that we are covering the full input space?

@cashd

• [ ] Tokens
  • [ ] Do all approve calls use forceApprove?
  • [ ] Do all transfer calls use safeTransfer?
  • [ ] Do all transferFrom calls use msg.sender as the from address?
    • [ ] If not, is the function access restricted to prevent unauthorized token spend?
• [ ] Low-level calls (call, delegatecall, staticcall, transfer, send)
  • [ ] Is the returned success boolean checked to handle failed calls?
  • [ ] If using delegatecall, are there strict access controls on the addresses that can be called? It shouldn't be possible to delegatecall arbitrary addresses, so the list of possible targets should either be immutable or tightly controlled by an admin.
• [ ] Reentrancy
  • [ ] Are functions that make external calls or transfer ether marked as nonReentrant?
    • [ ] If not, is there documentation that explains why reentrancy is not a concern or how it's mitigated?
• [ ] Gas Optimizations
  • [ ] Is the logic as simple as possible?
  • [ ] Are the storage values that are used repeatedly cached in stack or memory variables?
  • [ ] If loops are used, are there guards in place to avoid out-of-gas issues?
• [ ] Visibility
  • [ ] Are all payable functions restricted to avoid stuck ether?
• [ ] Math
  • [ ] Is all of the arithmetic checked or guarded by if-statements that will catch underflows?
  • [ ] If Safe functions are altered, are potential underflows and overflows caught so that a failure flag can be thrown?
  • [ ] Are all of the rounding directions clearly documented?
• [ ] Testing
  • [ ] Are there new or updated unit or integration tests?
  • [ ] Do the tests cover the happy paths?
  • [ ] Do the tests cover the unhappy paths?
  • [ ] Are there an adequate number of fuzz tests to ensure that we are covering the full input space?

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 8927567071

Details

• 38 of 40 (95.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 11 files are covered.
• 20 unchanged lines in 5 files lost coverage.
• Overall coverage decreased (-0.6%) to 92.999%

---

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
contracts/src/deployers/HyperdriveDeployerCoordinator.sol	7	8	87.5%
contracts/src/deployers/ezeth/EzETHTarget5Deployer.sol	2	3	66.67%
<!--	Total:	38	40	95.0%	-->

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
contracts/src/internal/HyperdriveLP.sol	1	96.83%
contracts/src/internal/HyperdriveShort.sol	1	93.81%
contracts/src/internal/HyperdriveLong.sol	2	93.81%
contracts/src/libraries/YieldSpaceMath.sol	2	91.43%
contracts/src/libraries/LPMath.sol	14	84.29%
<!--	Total:	20		-->

Totals
Change from base Build 8883450782:	-0.6%
Covered Lines:	1820
Relevant Lines:	1957

---

💛 - Coveralls

[github-actions[bot]]

Hyperdrive Gas Benchmark

Benchmark suite	Current: 37c94adfb9b1154a98a6010a3d8e079ae57664b1	Previous: f76f5dacd38664cae6a2539770f30ff595d92141	Deviation	Status
addLiquidity: min	33893 gas	33893 gas	0%	🟰
addLiquidity: avg	147854 gas	145128 gas	1.8783%	🚨
addLiquidity: max	416093 gas	428319 gas	-2.8544%	✅
checkpoint: min	40220 gas	40220 gas	0%	🟰
checkpoint: avg	104439 gas	104425 gas	0.0134%	🚨
checkpoint: max	211582 gas	212154 gas	-0.2696%	✅
closeLong: min	31517 gas	31517 gas	0%	🟰
closeLong: avg	137028 gas	138726 gas	-1.2240%	✅
closeLong: max	2640435 gas	2640435 gas	0%	🟰
closeShort: min	31394 gas	31394 gas	0%	🟰
closeShort: avg	133517 gas	133058 gas	0.3450%	🚨
closeShort: max	253640 gas	227565 gas	11.4583%	🚨
initialize: min	31265 gas	31305 gas	-0.1278%	✅
initialize: avg	276084 gas	253643 gas	8.8475%	🚨
initialize: max	344216 gas	322898 gas	6.6021%	🚨
openLong: min	33348 gas	33437 gas	-0.2662%	✅
openLong: avg	166838 gas	167129 gas	-0.1741%	✅
openLong: max	253064 gas	253057 gas	0.0028%	🚨
openShort: min	33959 gas	33959 gas	0%	🟰
openShort: avg	162757 gas	170383 gas	-4.4758%	✅
openShort: max	407200 gas	385545 gas	5.6167%	🚨
redeemWithdrawalShares: min	31251 gas	31227 gas	0.0769%	🚨
redeemWithdrawalShares: avg	73611 gas	62864 gas	17.0956%	🚨
redeemWithdrawalShares: max	204973 gas	167572 gas	22.3194%	🚨
removeLiquidity: min	31191 gas	31191 gas	0%	🟰
removeLiquidity: avg	198467 gas	221885 gas	-10.5541%	✅
removeLiquidity: max	395673 gas	398887 gas	-0.8057%	✅

This comment was automatically generated by workflow using github-action-benchmark.