Incorrect code produced with ternaries, imported function calls, and ternaries

[marcins]

🐛 bug report

Code like this produces incorrect output:

import { a, b } from "./foo";

const c = a() ? undefined : b?.();

A bisect shows that this is related to the change in #7956.

The optional chaining is relevant, as without it in the Repl correct output is produced (without optimisation that would potentially simplify the code further).

🤔 Expected Behavior

Code is bundled correctly, the right hand side of the ternary should be wrapped in parens:
const c = (0, a)() ? undefined : (0, b)?.();

😯 Current Behavior

The bundler outputs:

const c = (0, a)() ? undefined : 0, b?.();

Code on right hand side of ternary is not wrapped, which changes the behaviour.

This manifests itself initially at build time as a Terser parsing error "Missing initializer in const declaration", because it the resulting JS tries to re-initialise b.

As per above, without the optional chaining in the Parcel repl the output is const c = (0, a)() ? undefined : (0, b)();

💻 Code Sample

Repro in repl

[mischnic]

Is a bug in swc: swc-project/swc#5109