Create computed field

+++ b/realname.module
@@ -288,6 +290,20 @@ function realname_delete_all() {
+    $fields['realname_field'] = BaseFieldDefinition::create('string')

I think I like the name realname only a bit better. It will match the full name of this module.

Also, would it make sense to add a test or 2 to make sure this doesn't have regressions?

NW because doesn't apply.

#3259991-6: Create computed field → patch rerolled, the existing test are green.

#3259991-10: Create computed field → is fixed.

Hi, I have prepared a patch that includes fixes for the issues mentioned, along with the corresponding tests. Please review.

@sumit-k: Thanks the test.

Please test the following patch.

This is remove duplicated real name fields with Layout builder:

Next step:
Create configuration update path from the old psuedo field to new computed field.

Tested following patch. Looks good to me.

+++ b/realname.module
@@ -36,20 +38,6 @@ function realname_help($route_name, RouteMatchInterface $route_match) {
-function realname_entity_extra_field_info() {

Instead of removing this, can we mark it deprecated in the name or something? It would be great to have both there in the code base while we stabilize the conversion to a computed field.

1. +++ b/realname.module
   @@ -64,7 +52,7 @@ function realname_user_format_name_alter(&$name, AccountInterface $account) {
   +    if (is_string($account->realname) && mb_strlen($account->realname)) {
   
   @@ -119,10 +107,14 @@ function realname_user_view(array &$build, EntityInterface $account, EntityViewD
   +      if (is_string($account->realname)) {
   ...
   +      if (is_string($account->realname)) {
   

   why these changes?

2. +++ b/tests/src/Functional/RealnameBasicTest.php
   @@ -149,7 +149,7 @@ class RealnameBasicTest extends BrowserTestBase {
   +    $edit = ['fields[realname_field][region]' => 'content'];
   

   I thought the field was renamed, why is this still with a _field suffix added? And if it was working either way, what is this actually testing?

Instead of removing this, can we mark it deprecated in the name or something? It would be great to have both there in the code base while we stabilize the conversion to a computed field.

The problem is that if we don't remove it, we can't avoid the annoying repetition shown in the image above.

I thought the field was renamed, why is this still with a _field suffix added? And if it was working either way, what is this actually testing?

The _field suffix is added because the field was not actually deleted, only displayed (extra field).
The test does the same thing as before.

Consideration should be given to moving this task to version 3.x, along with a thorough refactoring.