Review requested:

• @nodejs/crypto
• @nodejs/http
• @nodejs/loaders
• @nodejs/net
• @nodejs/startup
• @nodejs/streams

Why? I won't block, but this is a cosmetic change that does not add any value in my opinion. It only adds noise to git blame.

IIRC optional chaining is slightly faster.

Quick and dirty JSBench shows a ~0.3-1% improvement in ops/sec: https://jsben.ch/znvKH

The performance is the same:

const Benchmark = require('benchmark');

const suite = new Benchmark.Suite();

const testBad = {};

suite.add('Optional chaining', function () {
  let wow;

  if (testBad?.id === '123') {
    wow = 'ok';
  }

  return wow;
});

suite.add('Without optional chaining', function () {
  let wow;

  if (testBad && testBad.id && testBad.id === '123') {
    wow = 'ok';
  }

  return wow;
});

suite.on('cycle', function (event) {
  console.log(event.target.toString());
});

suite.on('complete', function () {
  console.log('Fastest is ' + this.filter('fastest').map('name'));
});

suite.run({ async: true });

$ node index.js 
Optional chaining x 103,663,582 ops/sec ±6.25% (75 runs sampled)
Without optional chaining x 106,320,156 ops/sec ±5.14% (76 runs sampled)
Fastest is Without optional chaining,Optional chaining

ahh interesting. In that case, then yes, this is purely cosmetic, but I still think that using optional chaining is more concise and readable than without, but if it adds too much noise, it's not a needed change, however I'd love to see some other opinions.

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 93.33333% with 5 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 88.24%. Comparing base (8b8fc53) to head (dbf1046).
Report is 445 commits behind head on main.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #55045   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   88.23%   88.24%           
=======================================
  Files         652      652           
  Lines      183855   183896   +41     
  Branches    35856    35856           
=======================================
+ Hits       162227   162274   +47     
+ Misses      14909    14908    -1     
+ Partials     6719     6714    -5     

... and 50 files with indirect coverage changes

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/62648/

Going forward, has the project's stance on cosmetic changes changed? We've rejected dozens of patches like this in the past. I think that approving some while rejecting others is disrespectful to contributors who have theirs rejected.

@anonrig I added a prefer-optional-chaining lint rule. Are you still blocking?

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/62695/

@anonrig Would you mind re-reviewing or dismissing the request changes, as your concerns were addressed?

Landed in 574f2dd