# Optional chaining '?.'

[recent browser="new"]

The optional chaining `?.` is a safe way to access nested object properties, even if an intermediate property doesn't exist.

## The "non-existing property" problem

If you've just started to read the tutorial and learn JavaScript, maybe the problem hasn't touched you yet, but it's quite common.

As an example, let's say we have `user` objects that hold the information about our users. 

Most of our users have addresses in `user.address` property, with the street `user.address.street`, but some did not provide them.

In such case, when we attempt to get `user.address.street` of a user, and there's no address, then we get an error:

```js run
let user = {}; // a user without "address" property

alert(user.address.street); // Error!
```

That's the expected result. JavaScript works like this. As `user.address` is `undefined`, an attempt to get `user.address.street` fails with an error. 

That said, in many practical cases we'd prefer to get `undefined` instead of an error here (meaning "no street").

...And another example. In the web development, we may need the information about an element on the page. The element is returned by `document.querySelector('.elem')`, and the catch is again - that it sometimes doesn't exist:

```js run
// the result of the call document.querySelector('.elem') may be an object or null
let html = document.querySelector('.elem').innerHTML; // error if it's null
```

Once again, we may want to avoid the error in such case.

How can we do this?

The obvious solution would be to check the value using `if` or the conditional operator `?`, before accessing it, like this:

```js
let user = {};

alert(user.address ? user.address.street : undefined);
```

...But that's quite inelegant. As you can see, the `user.address` is duplicated in the code. For more deeply nested properties, that becomes a problem.

E.g. let's try getting `user.address.street.name`.

We need to check both `user.address` and `user.address.street`:

```js
let user = {}; // user has no address

alert(user.address ? user.address.street ? user.address.street.name : null : null);
```

That looks awful.

Before the optional chaining `?.` was added to the language, people used the `&&` operator for such cases:

```js run
let user = {}; // user has no address

alert( user.address && user.address.street && user.address.street.name ); // undefined (no error)
```

AND'ing the whole path to the property ensures that all components exist (if not, the evaluation stops), but also isn't ideal.

As you can see, the property names are still duplicated in the code. E.g. in the code above, `user.address` appears three times.

And now, finally, the optional chaining comes to the rescue!

## Optional chaining

The optional chaining `?.` stops the evaluation and returns `undefined` if the part before `?.` is `undefined` or `null`.

**Further in this article, for brevity, we'll be saying that something "exists" if it's not `null` and not `undefined`.**

Here's the safe way to access `user.address.street` using `?.`:

```js run
let user = {}; // user has no address

alert( user?.address?.street ); // undefined (no error)
```

The code is short and clean, there's no duplication at all.

Reading the address with `user?.address` works even if `user` object doesn't exist:

```js run
let user = null;

alert( user?.address ); // undefined
alert( user?.address.street ); // undefined
```

Please note: the `?.` syntax makes optional the value before it, but not any further.

In the example above, `user?.address.street` allows only `user` to be `null/undefined`.

On the other hand, if `user` does exist, then it must have `user.address` property, otherwise `user?.address.street` gives an error at the second dot.

```warn header="Don't overuse the optional chaining"
We should use `?.` only where it's ok that something doesn't exist.

For example, if according to our coding logic `user` object must exist, but `address` is optional, then we should write `user.address?.street`, but not `user?.address?.street`.

So, if `user` happens to be undefined due to a mistake, we'll see a programming error about it and fix it. Otherwise, coding errors can be silenced where not appropriate, and become more difficult to debug.
```

````warn header="The variable before `?.` must be declared"
If there's no variable `user` at all, then `user?.anything` triggers an error:

```js run
// ReferenceError: user is not defined
user?.address;
```
The variable must be declared (e.g. `let/const/var user` or as a function parameter). The optional chaining works only for declared variables.
````

## Short-circuiting

As it was said before, the `?.` immediately stops ("short-circuits") the evaluation if the left part doesn't exist.

So, if there are any further function calls or side effects, they don't occur.

For instance:

```js run
let user = null;
let x = 0;

user?.sayHi(x++); // no "sayHi", so the execution doesn't reach x++

alert(x); // 0, value not incremented
```

## Other variants: ?.(), ?.[]

The optional chaining `?.` is not an operator, but a special syntax construct, that also works with functions and square brackets.

For example, `?.()` is used to call a function that may not exist.

In the code below, some of our users have `admin` method, and some don't:

```js run
let user1 = {
  admin() {
    alert("I am admin");
  }
}

let user2 = {};

*!*
user1.admin?.(); // I am admin
user2.admin?.();
*/!*
```

Here, in both lines we first use the dot (`user1.admin`) to get `admin` property, because the user object must exist, so it's safe read from it.

Then `?.()` checks the left part: if the admin function exists, then it runs (that's so for `user1`). Otherwise (for `user2`) the evaluation stops without errors.

The `?.[]` syntax also works, if we'd like to use brackets `[]` to access properties instead of dot `.`. Similar to previous cases, it allows to safely read a property from an object that may not exist.

```js run
let user1 = {
  firstName: "John"
};

let user2 = null; // Imagine, we couldn't authorize the user

let key = "firstName";

alert( user1?.[key] ); // John
alert( user2?.[key] ); // undefined

alert( user1?.[key]?.something?.not?.existing); // undefined
```

Also we can use `?.` with `delete`:

```js run
delete user?.name; // delete user.name if user exists
```

````warn header="We can use `?.` for safe reading and deleting, but not writing"
The optional chaining `?.` has no use at the left side of an assignment.

For example:
```js run
let user = null;

user?.name = "John"; // Error, doesn't work
// because it evaluates to undefined = "John"
```

It's just not that smart.
````

## Summary

The optional chaining `?.` syntax has three forms:

1. `obj?.prop` -- returns `obj.prop` if `obj` exists, otherwise `undefined`.
2. `obj?.[prop]` -- returns `obj[prop]` if `obj` exists, otherwise `undefined`.
3. `obj.method?.()` -- calls `obj.method()` if `obj.method` exists, otherwise returns `undefined`.

As we can see, all of them are straightforward and simple to use. The `?.` checks the left part for `null/undefined` and allows the evaluation to proceed if it's not so.

A chain of `?.` allows to safely access nested properties.

Still, we should apply `?.` carefully, only where it's acceptable that the left part doesn't to exist. So that it won't hide programming errors from us, if they occur.