fix(perpetual): estimated pnl formula fix

[cosmic-vagabond]

Description

What has Changed?

Fix estimated pnl formula

---

Author Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.

I have...

• included the correct type prefix in the PR title
• added ! to the type prefix if API or client breaking change
• targeted the correct branch (see PR Targeting)
• provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
• followed the guidelines for building modules
• included the necessary unit and integration tests
• included comments for documenting Go code
• updated the relevant documentation or specification
• reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary
• confirmed all CI checks have passed

Reviewers Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.

I have...

• confirmed the correct type prefix in the PR title
• confirmed ! in the type prefix if API or client breaking change
• confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed
• reviewed state machine logic
• reviewed API design and naming
• reviewed documentation is accurate
• reviewed tests and test coverage
• manually tested (if applicable)

Deployment Notes

Are there any specific considerations to take into account when deploying these changes? This may include new dependencies, scripts that need to be executed, or any aspects that can only be evaluated in a deployed environment.

Screenshots and Videos

Please provide any relevant before and after screenshots by uploading them here. Additionally, demo videos can be highly beneficial in demonstrating the process.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 57.89474% with 16 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 42.94%. Comparing base (36eb585) to head (50b6d22).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #842      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   42.95%   42.94%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         682      682              
  Lines       23483    23486       +3     
==========================================
+ Hits        10086    10087       +1     
- Misses      12185    12186       +1     
- Partials     1212     1213       +1     

Components	Coverage Δ
leveragelp_transactions	92.63% <ø> (ø)
leveragelp_lifecycle	84.78% <ø> (ø)
leveragelp_keeper	86.58% <ø> (ø)
leveragelp_queries	25.11% <ø> (ø)
accountedpool_transactions	100.00% <ø> (ø)
accountedpool_lifecycle	∅ <ø> (∅)
accountedpool_queries	68.42% <ø> (ø)
amm_transactions	58.84% <ø> (ø)
amm_lifecycle	79.16% <ø> (ø)
amm_keeper	61.13% <ø> (ø)
amm_queries	29.94% <ø> (ø)
assetprofile_transactions	78.82% <ø> (ø)
assetprofile_lifecycle	∅ <ø> (∅)
assetprofile_keeper	83.33% <ø> (ø)
assetprofile_queries	47.41% <ø> (ø)
burner_transactions	0.00% <ø> (ø)
burner_lifecycle	∅ <ø> (∅)
burner_keeper	100.00% <ø> (ø)
burner_queries	63.54% <ø> (ø)
clock_transactions	30.00% <ø> (ø)
clock_lifecycle	∅ <ø> (∅)
clock_keeper	76.92% <ø> (ø)
clock_queries	∅ <ø> (∅)
commitment_transactions	48.83% <ø> (ø)
commitment_lifecycle	∅ <ø> (∅)
commitment_keeper	19.60% <ø> (ø)
commitment_queries	9.33% <ø> (ø)
epochs_transactions	∅ <ø> (∅)
epochs_lifecycle	100.00% <ø> (ø)
epochs_keeper	81.81% <ø> (ø)
epochs_queries	85.71% <ø> (ø)
estaking_transactions	48.64% <ø> (ø)
estaking_lifecycle	73.23% <ø> (ø)
estaking_keeper	63.05% <ø> (ø)
estaking_queries	55.31% <ø> (ø)
incentive_transactions	0.00% <ø> (ø)
incentive_lifecycle	∅ <ø> (∅)
incentive_keeper	0.00% <ø> (ø)
incentive_queries	∅ <ø> (∅)
masterchef_transactions	64.78% <ø> (ø)
masterchef_lifecycle	71.34% <ø> (ø)
masterchef_keeper	90.00% <ø> (ø)
masterchef_queries	45.97% <ø> (ø)
oracle_transactions	31.91% <ø> (ø)
oracle_lifecycle	0.00% <ø> (ø)
oracle_keeper	63.88% <ø> (ø)
oracle_queries	34.90% <ø> (ø)
parameter_transactions	15.11% <ø> (ø)
parameter_lifecycle	∅ <ø> (∅)
parameter_keeper	75.00% <ø> (ø)
parameter_queries	60.00% <ø> (ø)
stablestake_transactions	76.59% <ø> (ø)
stablestake_lifecycle	76.92% <ø> (ø)
stablestake_keeper	71.42% <ø> (ø)
stablestake_queries	13.04% <ø> (ø)
tier_transactions	28.57% <ø> (ø)
tier_lifecycle	100.00% <ø> (ø)
tier_keeper	90.47% <ø> (ø)
tier_queries	20.32% <ø> (ø)
tokenomics_transactions	72.32% <ø> (ø)
tokenomics_lifecycle	∅ <ø> (∅)
tokenomics_keeper	83.33% <ø> (ø)
tokenomics_queries	70.96% <ø> (ø)
transferhook_transactions	∅ <ø> (∅)
transferhook_lifecycle	∅ <ø> (∅)
transferhook_keeper	100.00% <ø> (ø)
transferhook_queries	60.00% <ø> (ø)
tradeshield_transactions	1.83% <ø> (ø)
tradeshield_lifecycle	∅ <ø> (∅)
tradeshield_keeper	76.92% <ø> (ø)
tradeshield_queries	8.40% <ø> (ø)

[amityadav0]

We also have PnL calc here, should this be updated too ?

[cosmic-vagabond]

We also have PnL calc here, should this be updated too ?

I added a new test case to test PnL value for existing long position with same parameters as the one used for the open estimation query, and the PnL value is off, you can see the pnl value here 6f7c289#diff-900fe1ffcaee5eacf8f1ed5ddf3d46cfe3ae39e2af85450636aa29d2f7026c16R807

that means something’s wrong with the GetPnL function that I will further review to align with the same pnl calculation formulas we use for open estimation pnl and ultimately merge those functions together to have a single source of calculation for the PnL calculation.

cc @amityadav0 @Wgil

[cosmic-vagabond]

We also have PnL calc here, should this be updated too ?

I added a new test case to test PnL value for existing long position with same parameters as the one used for the open estimation query, and the PnL value is off, you can see the pnl value here 6f7c289#diff-900fe1ffcaee5eacf8f1ed5ddf3d46cfe3ae39e2af85450636aa29d2f7026c16R807

that means something’s wrong with the GetPnL function that I will further review to align with the same pnl calculation formulas we use for open estimation pnl and ultimately merge those functions together to have a single source of calculation for the PnL calculation.

cc @amityadav0 @Wgil

@amityadav0 please review changes in 50b6d22 as it fixes the GetPnL function thanks

[amityadav0]

LGTM