title: Identity 2.0: ApplicationUser extension using a database first approach
body: <p>From a couple of articles I have found online    </p>
  
  <p><a href="http://typecastexception.com/post/2013/10/27/Configuring-Db-Connection-and-Code-First-Migration-for-Identity-Accounts-in-ASPNET-MVC-5-and-Visual-Studio-2013.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://typecastexception.com/post/2013/10/27/Configuring-Db-Connection-and-Code-First-Migration-for-Identity-Accounts-in-ASPNET-MVC-5-and-Visual-Studio-2013.aspx</a>  </p>
  
  <p><a href="http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/790720/ASP-NET-Identity-Customizing-Users-and-Roles" rel="nofollow">http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/790720/ASP-NET-Identity-Customizing-Users-and-Roles</a>   </p>
  
  <p>I have seen it is very simple to extend the ApplicationUser class in MVC 5/Identity 2.0. It basically requires adding of property to that class and all dependent views/viewmodels etc to implement the new functionality. The only question I have remaining is due to the fact that these articles all give you examples in regards to a code first perspective. How would extending the Applicationser class work with a database first perspective?  </p>
  
  <p>Here is what I imagine.  </p>
  
  <p>1.) Change the connection string to your production database. (In my case SQL Azure)<br>
  2.) Create the tables that are normally automatically created by identity 2.0 in SQL Azure.<br>
  3.) Fill those tables with the default properties and types.<br>
  4.) Add custom properties to the AspNetUsers table. (E.G. City, Zip, etc)<br>
  5.) Add those properties to the actual ApplicationUser class<br>
  6.) Update dependent views, controllers, viewmodels etc.  </p>
  
  <p>Is there a more simple way in doing this?</p>