Customize IdentityUser without Roles c# entity-framework-6


I´ve started development on a new ASP.NET MVC-App and I want to use ASP.NET Identity 2 for user-management. I want to get rid of the role-thing because I think this is absolutely not needed, especially if I think of the way, ASP.NET Identity handle roles behind the scenes: As claims. (please correct me if I´m wrong here)

I have two information regarding this issue: This official Microsoft-Documentation points out, that one only needs to implement the features needed, if the out-of-the-box-approach not meet all requirements. The other information is, that one have to derive the custom User from Microsoft.AspNet.Identity.EntityFramework.IdentityUser. But IdentityUser implements IdentityUser<string, IdentityUserLogin, IdentityUserRole, IdentityUserClaim>, IUser, IUser<string>

From my perspective, these information are not really compatible, because if I derive from this IdentityUser, I will take all this stuff into my CustomUser-Implementation whether I need it or not.

There is one more thing I wonder about: As I understood the Identity-Architecture, there are mainly two segments: Stores and Managers. The Manager is coupled to the Application and the Store, while the Store is coupled to the Manager and the Storage.

The storage-Interfaces are as flexible as I expected. Maybe I should start here - but I still don´t know, how to create a customUser as an entity, which derives from IdentityUser, without any reference to Roles. Can anyone tell me what my problem is?

The only stackoverflow question I found regarding this issue is here. But I won´t believe, that this is an approach to follow.

7/15/2017 1:07:32 AM

Accepted Answer

Well, first and foremost, you can't truly get rid of roles. You can choose not to use them, but you're still going to have an AspNetRoles table. There is no way to get rid of that as the role functionality is baked in. Identity is extensible in that you customize and extend the role, but the relationship is not removable. The Microsoft documentation is not wrong, here, per se; it's just perhaps not entirely clear. You don't have to implement any role-based functionality if you don't want to use roles. In other words, you don't have to create functionality to manage roles, assign roles to users, or to verify that users are in particular roles. However, that doesn't mean that the core role functionality ceases to be present in Identity: only that you may simply choose not to use it.

Second, roles are actually kind of needed, at least if you have any desire to have permission-based access controls. If every logged in user can do everything any other logged in user can, then roles are probably not necessary, but if there's any functionality that's specific to a subset of users, then you need roles. Also, roles are not claims, though they function much as claims do. Identity has a separate concept of "claims", though.

7/14/2017 8:41:04 PM

Related Questions


Licensed under: CC-BY-SA with attribution
Not affiliated with Stack Overflow
Licensed under: CC-BY-SA with attribution
Not affiliated with Stack Overflow