Figure out how to change `?.` (js optional chaining operator)

[plocket]

          Future issues:

1. Remove ?. optional chaining operator from user_data
2. How do we want to handle ?. optional chaining operators in general? They indicate that something is not as expected, which will have consequences somewhere in the code. Those cases should be handled.

Originally posted by @plocket in #255 (comment)

[thiagobardini]

The solution to this problem is to use Zod validation, as shown in the link below. We already have the validation in place, we just need to adjust it, which is why we're seeing conflicts.

Posted comment by @thiagobardini in #255 (comment)

[plocket]

From #255 (comment)

Briefly talked about tradeoffs of using optional in meeting, esp mentioning required form fields being driven by Zod. To me that means if we take the .optional() approach, we may need multiple zod objects for the same piece. Let's cover this in #258

For now, let's keep this convo in here

[ethanstrominger]

Is this still relveant?

[ethanstrominger]

@plocket Do you still think we should tke care of this? If we remove ? we could put a guard before hand.

[ethanstrominger]

Using ? is useful when typescript thinks a value could be empty.

if (!row.question || !row.question.value) {
return;
}
if (row.question.value="foo")

vs

if (row?.question?.value="foo")

[plocket]

I think ? often indicates unclear code. I can't tell if the code above is imaginary and I don't know what context surrounds it if it's real. In such a situation I would try to look at the rest of the code and see if there's a way to organize things so that we don't end up with a situation that is so convoluted. That said, it can take more work to write clearer code and sometimes it's as good as impossible. I'll go with whatever folks want to do.