Fix MockEzEthPool calculateTVLs

[sentilesdal]

Resolved Issues

Description

The testnet EzEth instance of Hyperdrive was returning vaultSharePrice values way below what it should. This now sets the price to basically: (totalSupply + interest) / totalSupply. I checked this on the currently deployed Sepolia contracts and it has sane values so I think this is all we need to do.

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.

[[Reviewer Name]]

• [ ] 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?

[github-actions[bot]]

Hyperdrive Gas Benchmark

Benchmark suite	Current: 8c825339257b35203135ce448e3320867872921e	Previous: a55506bfa3b5371bf36b5678692fe30c8fbad4e2	Deviation	Status
addLiquidity: min	33827 gas	33827 gas	0%	🟰
addLiquidity: avg	156305 gas	156018 gas	0.1840%	🚨
addLiquidity: max	428417 gas	428417 gas	0%	🟰
checkpoint: min	40292 gas	40292 gas	0%	🟰
checkpoint: avg	142307 gas	142331 gas	-0.0169%	✅
checkpoint: max	253424 gas	253424 gas	0%	🟰
closeLong: min	31361 gas	31361 gas	0%	🟰
closeLong: avg	135500 gas	135337 gas	0.1204%	🚨
closeLong: max	2625796 gas	2625796 gas	0%	🟰
closeShort: min	31349 gas	31349 gas	0%	🟰
closeShort: avg	131743 gas	131610 gas	0.1011%	🚨
closeShort: max	401915 gas	262998 gas	52.8206%	🚨
initialize: min	31371 gas	31371 gas	0%	🟰
initialize: avg	330366 gas	330372 gas	-0.0018%	✅
initialize: max	396259 gas	396259 gas	0%	🟰
openLong: min	33370 gas	33370 gas	0%	🟰
openLong: avg	173357 gas	173373 gas	-0.0092%	✅
openLong: max	306657 gas	306657 gas	0%	🟰
openShort: min	33936 gas	33936 gas	0%	🟰
openShort: avg	167925 gas	168009 gas	-0.0500%	✅
openShort: max	415379 gas	415307 gas	0.0173%	🚨
redeemWithdrawalShares: min	31251 gas	31251 gas	0%	🟰
redeemWithdrawalShares: avg	74736 gas	74854 gas	-0.1576%	✅
redeemWithdrawalShares: max	209828 gas	209828 gas	0%	🟰
removeLiquidity: min	31301 gas	31301 gas	0%	🟰
removeLiquidity: avg	208698 gas	208930 gas	-0.1110%	✅
removeLiquidity: max	403640 gas	403652 gas	-0.0030%	✅

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

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 9039205303

Details

• 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage remained the same at 93.235%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 9039156905:	0.0%
Covered Lines:	1833
Relevant Lines:	1966

---

💛 - Coveralls