Added updates to the weighted spot price to the other LP functions

[jalextowle]

Resolved Issues

Addresses https://github.com/spearbit-audits/delv-week-review/issues/16.

Description

Added updates to the weighted spot price to the other LP functions.

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?

[github-actions[bot]]

Hyperdrive Gas Benchmark

Benchmark suite	Current: 1e9ec81cec8d328a4e6b9b2ad628dcd38e787dec	Previous: 7bc914ff4f80a017d14a35d9cb5c5dd99987bd20	Deviation	Status
addLiquidity: min	33972 gas	33937 gas	0.1031%	🚨
addLiquidity: avg	159816 gas	155757 gas	2.6060%	🚨
addLiquidity: max	433481 gas	429262 gas	0.9828%	🚨
checkpoint: min	40316 gas	40316 gas	0%	🟰
checkpoint: avg	144692 gas	144703 gas	-0.0076%	✅
checkpoint: max	255940 gas	255940 gas	0%	🟰
closeLong: min	31361 gas	31361 gas	0%	🟰
closeLong: avg	135636 gas	135769 gas	-0.0980%	✅
closeLong: max	2539376 gas	2539376 gas	0%	🟰
closeShort: min	31327 gas	31327 gas	0%	🟰
closeShort: avg	131219 gas	131221 gas	-0.0015%	✅
closeShort: max	354112 gas	271348 gas	30.5011%	🚨
initialize: min	31384 gas	31349 gas	0.1116%	🚨
initialize: avg	333482 gas	333439 gas	0.0129%	🚨
initialize: max	400083 gas	399978 gas	0.0263%	🚨
openLong: min	33370 gas	33370 gas	0%	🟰
openLong: avg	173132 gas	173218 gas	-0.0496%	✅
openLong: max	334062 gas	334062 gas	0%	🟰
openShort: min	33936 gas	33936 gas	0%	🟰
openShort: avg	168388 gas	168476 gas	-0.0522%	✅
openShort: max	415253 gas	415110 gas	0.0344%	🚨
redeemWithdrawalShares: min	31286 gas	31251 gas	0.1120%	🚨
redeemWithdrawalShares: avg	83898 gas	75114 gas	11.6942%	🚨
redeemWithdrawalShares: max	308668 gas	305698 gas	0.9715%	🚨
removeLiquidity: min	31336 gas	31301 gas	0.1118%	🚨
removeLiquidity: avg	219844 gas	215048 gas	2.2302%	🚨
removeLiquidity: max	409128 gas	403641 gas	1.3594%	🚨

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