fix: Remove optional chaining syntax to fix esm

[jacobhaile]

What: Removing the optional chainging "?" syntax from the index file

Why: The optional chaining syntax can cause compilation breaks

How: Break out the optional changing into an && statement

Checklist:

• [N/A] Documentation added to the
  docs site
• [N/A] Tests
• [N/A] TypeScript definitions updated
• Ready to be merged
  

[codesandbox-ci]

This pull request is automatically built and testable in CodeSandbox.

To see build info of the built libraries, click here or the icon next to each commit SHA.

Latest deployment of this branch, based on commit 2df7922:

Sandbox	Source
React	Configuration
react-testing-library-examples	Configuration

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1234 (2df7922) into main (6de5f4c) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##              main     #1234   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files            4         4           
  Lines          192       194    +2     
  Branches        38        40    +2     
=========================================
+ Hits           192       194    +2     

Flag	Coverage Δ
canary	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
experimental	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
latest	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files Changed	Coverage Δ
src/index.js	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

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

[MatanBobi]

Hi @jacobhaile!
Thanks for taking the time to open this.
Since we're targeting Node 14 as the minimal engine and optional chaining is available from Node 14, I believe this change is not needed.
Thanks again!

[jacobhaile]

Thanks for the time @MatanBobi!

Does this account for esm files? I upgraded react-testing-library to v14 and I'm seeing my cypress runs impacted because of that optional chaining syntax. I'm on node v16.

[MatanBobi]

That's a good question @jacobhaile, I must admit I'm not entirely on the ESM train. I'll have to look into it a bit more. Not sure I'll have the time for it soon so I'm opening this PR and if someone has an opinion, they're more than free to post it :)

[nickmccurdy]

Since we're targeting Node 14 as the minimal engine and optional chaining is available from Node 14, I believe this change is not needed.

@MatanBobi I believe this is correct.

@jacobhaile I can't reproduce this issue with Cypress. Can you please share a reproduction?

[jacobhaile]

I can close out -- I no longer get the error after updating to Cypress v13

[MatanBobi]

Thanks for the update @jacobhaile :)