Continued post lock data inconsistencies

[nathan.noom]

There are continued inconsistencies between data returned by the two post lock functions. This was originally supposed to be addressed in #55238, but was not resolved in both locations.

wp_check_locked_posts returns the user's name, but wp_refresh_post_lock does not:
​https://github.com/WordPress/wordpress-develop/blob/trunk/src/wp-admin/includes/misc.php#L1140-L1142
​https://github.com/WordPress/wordpress-develop/blob/trunk/src/wp-admin/includes/misc.php#L1193-L1194

Addresses an issue where wp_check_locked_posts returns the user's name, but wp_refresh_post_lock does not.

Trac ticket: https://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/56197

[SergeyBiryukov]

Hi there, welcome to WordPress Trac! Thanks for the ticket and the PR.

I think this looks good to include in WP 6.0.1.

[SergeyBiryukov]

In 53692:

Editor: Include user's name in the wp_refresh_post_lock() response.

This ensures that the post lock data returned by the Heartbeat API is consistent.

Previously, wp_check_locked_posts() was updated to return the name of the user currently editing the post, but the wp_refresh_post_lock() response did not get a similar change.

Follow-up to [53070].

Props nathan.noom.
Fixes #56197.

[SergeyBiryukov]

In 53693:

Editor: Include user's name in the wp_refresh_post_lock() response.

This ensures that the post lock data returned by the Heartbeat API is consistent.

Previously, wp_check_locked_posts() was updated to return the name of the user currently editing the post, but the wp_refresh_post_lock() response did not get a similar change.

Follow-up to [53070].

Props nathan.noom.
Merges [53692] to the 6.0 branch.
Fixes #56197.

Thanks for the PR! Merged in r53692, backported to the 6.0 branch in r53693.

[Mamaduka]

I think this is a duplicate of #55238.

The fix should've been a part of 6.0. However, I'm not sure if the original patch got reverted.

[nathan.noom]

Replying to Mamaduka:

I think this is a duplicate of #55238.

The fix should've been a part of 6.0. However, I'm not sure if the original patch got reverted.

Not a duplicate. The change needed to be applied in two places, but it was only applied in one of them. This is stated in the ticket description. No need to revert the original patch.