Follow up for #967566: Several important Core User settings need to implement hook_field_extra_fields() →
(copied from #967566-155: Several important Core User settings need to implement hook_field_extra_fields() → could use clarification where needed)
some of the extra fields only appear conditionally. However:
1) The entire definition and appearance of extra fields is pretty poor right now in the first place: A seemingly random description à la "Contact module form element." appears in a table column that has the label/heading "Field type". One should ask why the actual field type isn't "Fieldset" or "Details" or "Fieldgroup". The textual description that appears for extra fields is a user interface bug in the first place, if you'd ask me.
2) All other (real) fields are bound to field access constraints, too. They do not denote that in the UI either. Thus, I don't see why extra fields should try to explain that either. Doing so would only increase the problem of those descriptions, since i) real fields do not have a description at all, ii) some (but not all!) of the extra field descriptions would be a huge wall of text, and iii) there's very limited space available to begin with.
Clarify that some fields may not necessarily appear in Field UI overview
(new or changed features/functionality in the user interface, modules added or removed, changes to URL paths, changes to user interface text)
(API changes/additions that would affect module, install profile, and theme developers, including examples of before/after code if appropriate)
Postponed: needs info
9.5
Makes Drupal easier to use. Preferred over UX, D7UX, etc.
After being applied to the 8.x branch, it should be considered for backport to the 7.x branch. Note: This tag should generally remain even after the backport has been written, approved, and committed.
Not all content is available!
It's likely this issue predates Contrib.social: some issue and comment data are missing.
The new method is now hook_entity_extra_field_info() but wonder with D10 if this is still a valid task?
There has been no activity here for 12 years except to ask if this is still valid. There has been no answer so I am closing this.
If there is work to do here, then either re-open the issue and add a comment or open a new issue and reference this one.