lib: remove unnecessary optional chaining

[gurgunday]

From the V8 blog:

Still, be considerate about using more than one optional chaining operator in a single chain. If a value is guaranteed to not be nullish, then using ?. to access properties on it is discouraged.

It adds more bytecode to each property access, in all these cases we know that the variables are not nullish

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 88.39%. Comparing base (58a7b00) to head (cb499ae).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #55728      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.40%   88.39%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         654      654              
  Lines      187655   187655              
  Branches    36111    36112       +1     
==========================================
- Hits       165889   165881       -8     
- Misses      14996    15003       +7     
- Partials     6770     6771       +1     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
lib/events.js	99.75% <100.00%> (ø)
lib/fs.js	98.14% <100.00%> (ø)
lib/internal/fs/promises.js	98.24% <100.00%> (ø)
lib/internal/fs/read/context.js	94.57% <100.00%> (ø)
lib/internal/fs/watchers.js	85.78% <100.00%> (ø)
lib/timers/promises.js	99.15% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 20 files with indirect coverage changes

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/63435/

[aduh95]

I wonder if we could have a lint rule for that, that'd be neat

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/63441/