Simplified `_applyCheckpoint`

[jalextowle]

Resolved Issues

Fixes: https://github.com/spearbit-audits/delv-week-review/issues/11

Description

This PR simplifies _applyCheckpoint.

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, 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?

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 9555235961

Details

• 10 of 10 (100.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 1 file are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage decreased (-0.008%) to 92.116%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 9554961305:	-0.008%
Covered Lines:	1963
Relevant Lines:	2131

---

💛 - Coveralls

[github-actions[bot]]

Hyperdrive Gas Benchmark

Benchmark suite	Current: 9074688c2e1e68ca93cbae49bb0a7a11983e7bbf	Previous: e5525e96fea5bc61e0eec7fe694049aa6722aa1c	Deviation	Status
addLiquidity: min	33937 gas	33937 gas	0%	🟰
addLiquidity: avg	156439 gas	155877 gas	0.3605%	🚨
addLiquidity: max	429527 gas	429437 gas	0.0210%	🚨
checkpoint: min	40316 gas	40316 gas	0%	🟰
checkpoint: avg	144724 gas	144636 gas	0.0608%	🚨
checkpoint: max	255931 gas	255830 gas	0.0395%	🚨
closeLong: min	31361 gas	31361 gas	0%	🟰
closeLong: avg	135914 gas	136439 gas	-0.3848%	✅
closeLong: max	2539376 gas	2621435 gas	-3.1303%	✅
closeShort: min	31327 gas	31327 gas	0%	🟰
closeShort: avg	131189 gas	132305 gas	-0.8435%	✅
closeShort: max	400823 gas	272530 gas	47.0748%	🚨
initialize: min	31349 gas	31349 gas	0%	🟰
initialize: avg	333397 gas	333352 gas	0.0135%	🚨
initialize: max	400023 gas	399922 gas	0.0253%	🚨
openLong: min	33370 gas	33370 gas	0%	🟰
openLong: avg	173171 gas	174248 gas	-0.6181%	✅
openLong: max	334107 gas	335241 gas	-0.3383%	✅
openShort: min	33936 gas	33936 gas	0%	🟰
openShort: avg	168493 gas	168925 gas	-0.2557%	✅
openShort: max	415527 gas	415870 gas	-0.0825%	✅
redeemWithdrawalShares: min	31251 gas	31251 gas	0%	🟰
redeemWithdrawalShares: avg	74809 gas	75830 gas	-1.3464%	✅
redeemWithdrawalShares: max	305734 gas	305633 gas	0.0330%	🚨
removeLiquidity: min	31301 gas	31301 gas	0%	🟰
removeLiquidity: avg	215481 gas	214933 gas	0.2550%	🚨
removeLiquidity: max	404194 gas	404194 gas	0%	🟰

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

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 9556659487

Warning: This coverage report may be inaccurate.

This pull request's base commit is no longer the HEAD commit of its target branch. This means it includes changes from outside the original pull request, including, potentially, unrelated coverage changes.

• For more information on this, see Tracking coverage changes with pull request builds.
• To avoid this issue with future PRs, see these Recommended CI Configurations.
• For a quick fix, rebase this PR at GitHub. Your next report should be accurate.

Details

• 20 of 20 (100.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 3 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.07%) to 92.189%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 9554961305:	0.07%
Covered Lines:	1971
Relevant Lines:	2138

---

💛 - Coveralls