Add the deployerCoordinatorManager role to the HyperdriveFactory

[jalextowle]

Description

This PR adds a new role to the factory that can add and remove deployer coordinators. This will provide some flexibility to governance on mainnet so that they can avoid timelocks every time a deployer coordinator is added.

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?

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 9067119689

Details

• 5 of 5 (100.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 1 file are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.07%) to 93.303%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 9039652527:	0.07%
Covered Lines:	1839
Relevant Lines:	1971

---

💛 - Coveralls

[github-actions]

Hyperdrive Gas Benchmark

Benchmark suite	Current: 2d167aa	Previous: c26ba16	Deviation	Status
addLiquidity: min	33827 gas	33827 gas	0%	🟰
addLiquidity: avg	156539 gas	156990 gas	-0.2873%	✅
addLiquidity: max	428417 gas	428417 gas	0%	🟰
checkpoint: min	40292 gas	40292 gas	0%	🟰
checkpoint: avg	142301 gas	142359 gas	-0.0407%	✅
checkpoint: max	253424 gas	253424 gas	0%	🟰
closeLong: min	31361 gas	31361 gas	0%	🟰
closeLong: avg	135153 gas	135212 gas	-0.0436%	✅
closeLong: max	2625796 gas	2625796 gas	0%	🟰
closeShort: min	31349 gas	31349 gas	0%	🟰
closeShort: avg	131644 gas	131726 gas	-0.0623%	✅
closeShort: max	262998 gas	262998 gas	0%	🟰
initialize: min	31371 gas	31371 gas	0%	🟰
initialize: avg	330242 gas	330266 gas	-0.0073%	✅
initialize: max	396259 gas	396259 gas	0%	🟰
openLong: min	33370 gas	33370 gas	0%	🟰
openLong: avg	173250 gas	173099 gas	0.0872%	🚨
openLong: max	306657 gas	306657 gas	0%	🟰
openShort: min	33936 gas	33936 gas	0%	🟰
openShort: avg	167932 gas	168046 gas	-0.0678%	✅
openShort: max	415379 gas	415299 gas	0.0193%	🚨
redeemWithdrawalShares: min	31251 gas	31251 gas	0%	🟰
redeemWithdrawalShares: avg	74691 gas	74263 gas	0.5763%	🚨
redeemWithdrawalShares: max	209828 gas	209828 gas	0%	🟰
removeLiquidity: min	31301 gas	31301 gas	0%	🟰
removeLiquidity: avg	209204 gas	208988 gas	0.1034%	🚨
removeLiquidity: max	403640 gas	403652 gas	-0.0030%	✅

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

[mcclurejt]

left comment suggestion otherwise LGTM

[jrhea]

lgtm. coverage is saying that we lost this line of coverage? im happy to make a new PR to add it back - just wanted to mention it: