fix: handling attributes on the body tag in the server for both rpc and document styles

[natanbcpc]

Description

When adding attributes to the body tag (e.g. <soap:Body soap:encodingStyle="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/">), the library currently returns the following error:

TypeError: Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'output')
at Server._executeMethod (/usr/src/app/node_modules/strong-soap/src/server.js:337:44)
at Server._process (/usr/src/app/node_modules/strong-soap/src/server.js:207:14)
at IncomingMessage. (/usr/src/app/node_modules/strong-soap/src/server.js:112:18)
at IncomingMessage.emit (node:events:513:28)
at endReadableNT (node:internal/streams/readable:1359:12)
at process.processTicksAndRejections (node:internal/process/task_queues:82:21)

Currently, this was only supported using the document style and when the attributes key was set to the default "attributes". This update adds support for rpc style as well and updates the document style to get the key from the server options.

Related issues

• connect to BUG: Attributes in the body tag are incorrectly handled #815

Checklist

Obs. I could not find a way to send an attribute on the body tag from the client or any test that covered the same scenario for the existing supported case (document style and attributesKey set to default "attributes"), so that's why no new unit tests were added.

• New tests added or existing tests modified to cover all changes
• Code conforms with the style
  guide

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 10065189979

Details

• 2 of 2 (100.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 1 file are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage decreased (-0.04%) to 84.651%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 10044216961:	-0.04%
Covered Lines:	2894
Relevant Lines:	3248

---

💛 - Coveralls

[natanbcpc]

@raymondfeng @achrinza from what I tried, there's no way to create a unit test for this change. Am I missing something? If not, can this be reviewed, please?

[dhmlau]

@natanbcpc, thanks for the contribution. Your changes look reasonable to me. I'd like to have another review before merging. Thanks.