feat: omnipool imbalance adjustment

[enthusiastmartin]

No description provided.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Base: 90.53% // Head: 90.81% // Increases project coverage by +0.28% 🎉

Coverage data is based on head (5d9d419) compared to base (b454b72).
Patch coverage: 100.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #87      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   90.53%   90.81%   +0.28%     
==========================================
  Files          10       10              
  Lines         697      697              
==========================================
+ Hits          631      633       +2     
+ Misses         66       64       -2     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/omnipool/math.rs	91.94% <100.00%> (ø)
src/omnipool/types.rs	100.00% <0.00%> (+4.44%)	⬆️

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[poliwop]

Not a request to change anything, just a note after thinking about how we missed this:
It's harder to test these objects we're returning where we are specifying the deltas, it would be much easier to test objects where we just specified the new state for the variables involved (i.e. we specified the new value for L instead of delta L). This is especially true with Increase() and Decrease() custom enums.

Probably this is just something to keep in mind for the future...

[poliwop]

I should mention I did review this change and it looks good to me, won't do a formal "review" since I'm not so familiar with Rust.

[enthusiastmartin]

Not a request to change anything, just a note after thinking about how we missed this: It's harder to test these objects we're returning where we are specifying the deltas, it would be much easier to test objects where we just specified the new state for the variables involved (i.e. we specified the new value for L instead of delta L). This is especially true with Increase() and Decrease() custom enums.

Probably this is just something to keep in mind for the future...

yes. i kind of agree that imbalance update is little bit confusing.

i will suggest refactoring this part .