refactor(protocol): check if amount > 0 inside sendEther

[dantaik]

It's quite weird that checking amount>0 inside the sendEther function is actually cheaper...how come

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #13390 (16eb81a) into major_protocol_upgrade_rebase (6a13380) will increase coverage by 0.10%.
The diff coverage is 0.00%.

@@                        Coverage Diff                        @@
##           major_protocol_upgrade_rebase   #13390      +/-   ##
=================================================================
+ Coverage                          39.81%   39.92%   +0.10%     
=================================================================
  Files                                112      112              
  Lines                               3403     3394       -9     
  Branches                             416      407       -9     
=================================================================
  Hits                                1355     1355              
+ Misses                              1960     1951       -9     
  Partials                              88       88              

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
bridge-ui	94.22% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 9754f69
protocol	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
relayer	62.30% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 9754f69
ui	100.00% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 9754f69

*This pull request uses carry forward flags. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
packages/protocol/contracts/bridge/EtherVault.sol	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...rotocol/contracts/bridge/libs/LibBridgeProcess.sol	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
.../protocol/contracts/bridge/libs/LibBridgeRetry.sol	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...s/protocol/contracts/bridge/libs/LibBridgeSend.sol	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
packages/protocol/contracts/libs/LibAddress.sol	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

[Brechtpd]

It's quite weird that checking amount>0 inside the sendEther function is actually cheaper...how come

Was not expecting that, I thought it would be the same at best. :) The only possible explanation I can think of is that the function call is inlined, and so the compiler can do some extra tiny optimizations because of that.