fix: allow for non optional chain call expression in render

[paoloricciuti]

Svelte 5 rewrite

The issue is not open yet but was highlighted on discord : i just removed the optional check, tests and runtime seems to work fine but i would love a bit of insight from @dummdidumm about why he included that check in #10656

Please note that the Svelte codebase is currently being rewritten for Svelte 5. Changes should target Svelte 5, which lives on the default branch (main).

If your PR concerns Svelte 4 (including updates to svelte.dev.docs), please ensure the base branch is svelte-4 and not main.

Before submitting the PR, please make sure you do the following

• It's really useful if your PR references an issue where it is discussed ahead of time. In many cases, features are absent for a reason. For large changes, please create an RFC: https://github.com/sveltejs/rfcs
• Prefix your PR title with feat:, fix:, chore:, or docs:.
• This message body should clearly illustrate what problems it solves.
• Ideally, include a test that fails without this PR but passes with it.

Tests and linting

• Run the tests with pnpm test and lint the project with pnpm lint

[changeset-bot]

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: 3d96ba5

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 1 package

Name	Type
svelte	Patch

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

[dummdidumm]

No idea honestly, change looks good

[mimbrown]

So this will allow a.b() but not a.b.c(), which feels a little arbitrary. From what I can tell they were trying not to allow any chained syntax other than a single nullish call a?.(), but it mistakenly also allowed a?.b?.() (but not a?.b()). I don't know that this truly fixes the issue.

[mimbrown]

Ah never mind, I misread the AST.

[paoloricciuti]

So this will allow a.b() but not a.b.c(), which feels a little arbitrary. From what I can tell they were trying not to allow any chained syntax other than a single nullish call a?.(), but it mistakenly also allowed a?.b?.() (but not a?.b()). I don't know that this truly fixes the issue.

As Simon pointed out in the original pr the AST is a little weird but basically it will always be a CallExpression or a ChainedExpression with a CallExpression. Basically

a.b.c();

will be a a.b ChainedExpression with a c() CallExpression