Fix #7677: 3.20 Sometimes Global Score doesn't auto-update across tabs

[Miraeld]

Description

Fixes #7677 Uses local storage to spread the data to others tabs.

Type of change

• [x] Enhancement (non-breaking change which improves an existing functionality).

Detailed scenario

What was tested

Manual test like the video

How to test

Follow the video in the issue.

Technical description

Documentation

This pull request enhances the way global score updates are handled across browser tabs by introducing a mechanism to broadcast and synchronize score changes using localStorage events. This ensures that when the global score is updated in one tab, the change is immediately reflected in all other open tabs, improving consistency and user experience.

Global score synchronization improvements:

• Added the broadcastGlobalScoreUpdate function to send global score updates to other tabs via localStorage, including a timestamp to ensure reliable event firing.
• Implemented a listener for the storage event that receives global score updates from other tabs and calls updateGlobalScoreUI to refresh the score display.
• Modified AJAX success handlers to broadcast global score updates after updating local state, ensuring all tabs remain in sync when scores change from dashboard or Rocket Insights actions. [1] [2] [3]

UI update enhancements:

• Added the updateGlobalScoreUI function to centralize UI updates for the global score widget and Rocket Insights table row, simplifying score refresh logic.

Mandatory Checklist

Code validation

• [x] I validated all the Acceptance Criteria. If possible, provide screenshots or videos.
• [x] I triggered all changed lines of code at least once without new errors/warnings/notices.
• [ ] I implemented built-in tests to cover the new/changed code.

Code style

• [x] I wrote a self-explanatory code about what it does.
• [x] I protected entry points against unexpected inputs.
• [x] I did not introduce unnecessary complexity.
• [x] Output messages (errors, notices, logs) are explicit enough for users to understand the issue and are actionnable.

Unticked items justification

No tests for this.

[codacy-production[bot]]

Coverage summary from Codacy

See diff coverage on Codacy

Coverage variation	Diff coverage
Report missing for ebe9a5283d6c2d7602612d29b9cfff8aaa9710fa[^1]	:white_check_mark: ∅ (target: 50.00%)

Coverage variation details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Coverage
Common ancestor commit (ebe9a5283d6c2d7602612d29b9cfff8aaa9710fa)	Report Missing	Report Missing	Report Missing
Head commit (728801be22559179c9a4c82dd9a66bf3ae0108a8)	41437	18493	44.63%

Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: <coverage of head commit> - <coverage of common ancestor commit>

Diff coverage details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Diff coverage
Pull request (#7786)	0	0	∅ (not applicable)

Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: <covered lines added or modified>/<coverable lines added or modified> * 100%

See your quality gate settings    Change summary preferences

[^1]: Codacy didn't receive coverage data for the commit, or there was an error processing the received data. Check your integration for errors and validate that your coverage setup is correct.

[jeawhanlee]

@wordpressfan Do we still continue with this PR as we established that it was edgy.

[wordpressfan]

No, let's block it exactly as @Miraeld , and if needed we can validate later and go ahead with the PR