Update version to v1.0.9

[jalextowle]

Resolved Issues

Description

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 9407789568

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 92.982%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 9395438153:	0.0%
Covered Lines:	1908
Relevant Lines:	2052

---

💛 - Coveralls

[github-actions]

Hyperdrive Gas Benchmark

Benchmark suite	Current: bea1f19	Previous: fd02a5c	Deviation	Status
addLiquidity: min	33827 gas	33827 gas	0%	🟰
addLiquidity: avg	155631 gas	155150 gas	0.3100%	🚨
addLiquidity: max	429092 gas	429092 gas	0%	🟰
checkpoint: min	40292 gas	40292 gas	0%	🟰
checkpoint: avg	142318 gas	142265 gas	0.0373%	🚨
checkpoint: max	253424 gas	253424 gas	0%	🟰
closeLong: min	31361 gas	31361 gas	0%	🟰
closeLong: avg	136068 gas	136055 gas	0.0096%	🚨
closeLong: max	2625796 gas	2625796 gas	0%	🟰
closeShort: min	31349 gas	31349 gas	0%	🟰
closeShort: avg	131932 gas	131943 gas	-0.0083%	✅
closeShort: max	402408 gas	401999 gas	0.1017%	🚨
initialize: min	31371 gas	31371 gas	0%	🟰
initialize: avg	330958 gas	330957 gas	0.0003%	🚨
initialize: max	397010 gas	397010 gas	0%	🟰
openLong: min	33370 gas	33370 gas	0%	🟰
openLong: avg	173856 gas	173966 gas	-0.0632%	✅
openLong: max	306958 gas	306958 gas	0%	🟰
openShort: min	33936 gas	33936 gas	0%	🟰
openShort: avg	168546 gas	168699 gas	-0.0907%	✅
openShort: max	415910 gas	415910 gas	0%	🟰
redeemWithdrawalShares: min	31251 gas	31251 gas	0%	🟰
redeemWithdrawalShares: avg	74737 gas	75299 gas	-0.7464%	✅
redeemWithdrawalShares: max	210204 gas	210204 gas	0%	🟰
removeLiquidity: min	31301 gas	31301 gas	0%	🟰
removeLiquidity: avg	214780 gas	214678 gas	0.0475%	🚨
removeLiquidity: max	403971 gas	403959 gas	0.0030%	🚨

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