AWS CodePipeline Reviews

I have used AWS CodePipeline as part of my work deploying applications, particularly an e-commerce app for a customer on AWS. I designed the process starting with building Docker images on a local machine and then pushing them to AWS ECR (Elastic Container Registry). 

After that, I configured the necessary infrastructure using Terraform and used AWS CodePipeline along with other services like CodeDeploy and CodeCommit to manage the deployment process.

AWS CodePipeline has improved our deployment efficiency, allowing us to orchestrate services such as CodeBuild, CodeDeploy, and CodeCommit seamlessly within AWS. Its native integration with AWS makes it easier to manage processes and improve deployment workflows within our organization.

AWS CodePipeline's most valuable feature is its seamless integration with other AWS services, making it easier to orchestrate deployment processes. It scales easily, and since it's native to AWS, most functionalities are integrated naturally, providing a consistent environment. The fact that alternatives like Jenkins and GitHub Actions require more effort to integrate makes CodePipeline the preferred choice.

AWS CodePipeline works effectively, and I haven't identified any specific areas needing improvement as it has been quite satisfying in terms of deployment needs. Feedback from clients has also been positive, indicating satisfaction with the service.

I have been using AWS CodePipeline for over two years now.

I have not encountered any stability issues with AWS CodePipeline since I began using it. It has been quite efficient and reliable for all my deployment tasks.

AWS CodePipeline scales easily and effectively, supporting various deployment models and workloads. It offers significant flexibility whether deploying on EC2 instances or using container services.

AWS support is excellent. Whenever I encounter issues, the support team is always available and helpful.

In the past, I have used solutions like Jenkins and GitHub Actions. However, AWS CodePipeline is more integrated within AWS, making it the preferred choice for projects hosted on AWS.

AWS CodePipeline and its associated services do not incur significant additional charges. The cost primarily comes from deploying other AWS resources like EC2 and S3 alongside the pipeline.

I have considered Jenkins and GitHub Actions as alternatives. However, the native integration of AWS CodePipeline within AWS makes it much easier to use in that environment.

I recommend AWS CodePipeline, but it depends on the type of project and needs of the customer. Based on my experiences, a rating of seven or eight out of ten reflects its capabilities. It's essential to consider the use case when recommending solutions.

The best thing about AWS CodePipeline is that we don't have to manage agents. I have worked in Jenkins for three years, but when it comes to AWS CodePipeline, you don't have to manage agents. We pay for the agents only when the build occurs. In the case of Jenkins, we have to provision a standardized node to work as an agent.

In Jenkins, we can use custom plugins from the open-source market to integrate the pipeline with any third-party application. In AWS CodePipeline, we can only use certain tools for which AWS provisions plugins. Otherwise, we have to create Lambda functions and write our own Lambda code to make those tools compatible with each other.

We recently used a DAST tool called Rapid7, for which we didn't have a plugin. We have a plugin for Rapid7 in Jenkins, but we don't have a plugin in AWS CodePipeline. We had to write a Lambda function using the Requests module to do all the authentication.

I have been using AWS CodePipeline for the last one year.

AWS CodePipeline is a stable solution.

Around 30% of our entire workforce works with AWS CodePipeline.

Sometimes, the support person is very highly qualified. They help us resolve the issue and suggest additional best practices. Other times, we encounter a support person who is not qualified enough.

Neutral

I previously worked with an open-source tool called Jenkins. I feel that AWS CodePipeline is a better solution than Jenkins. Managing the Jenkins server and nodes is a bigger headache than AWS CodePipeline.

My client is a US client, where the deployment is done in Lambda. In CodePipeline, the first stage will be source code. The source code will be pulled from GitHub using AWS CoStar. We pull code from source code using CoStar connections. Then comes the build stage, where we run the npm run command to build the front end.

We push the build artifact and index. html to S3 bucket. We host the front-end website using S3 bucket and CloudFront. Back-end applications are node-based applications that are deployed in Lambda. There, CodeBuild builds the application using npm. After that, we use the built artifact as a layer for the Lambda function.

The deployment happens in the cross-account. We have separate accounts for each environment, and we create an IAM role in all those accounts. We give STS permission for those roles. In principle, we are giving the CI account.

We have a centralized CI account that has AWS CodePipeline. In this CodePipeline, we will assume the role created in the other account. Assuming that role, we are going to deploy in that account.

The solution's initial setup is a bit hectic, but these things need to be done to maintain security. An easy deployment might result in some security lapses.

I would recommend the solution to other users. AWS CodePipeline is worth the price. AWS CodePipeline is quite easy to learn and work on.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I use the solution in my company to create an end-to-end flow for the clients' pipelines and to host different applications in different languages.

The tool improves the functioning of my company and makes continuous delivery seamless. Once we set up the pipeline and you connect it to your branch, you can make any changes to different branches anytime. The tool provides an easy way of scanning the entire setup packages and the applications we work with within our company.

The solution's most valuable feature revolves around migration. The tool makes it easy to deliver the software. You don't need to sign in to any script to do anything, so you can just package everything in the tool.

AWS continuously improves the tool's UI.

One downside in AWS is that when you attempt to push a change in, it misses that part, or it could be because some variables are not set correctly. When AWS CloudFormation Stack goes for an update, it gives a failed status. Most of the time, you have to delete the stack and run your pipeline to create a new stack. You can't go back to reverse those changes with the AWS pipeline if a stack fails when you've pushed a change that didn't match up so well.

It is not true that our company doesn't have a backup solution, which will help save everything in case something goes wrong. It is not that a backup is missing but more of a configuration based on how AWS CodePipeline is set up, like how AWS CloudFormation works.

I have been using AWS CodePipeline for over two years.

It is a very stable solution as long as the developers don't add anything that will end up breaking the pipelines. If we communicate with the developers about everything we do in our company, then breakages do not really happen.

Linux is where you may have some limitations on the number of pipelines you can create through the tool. If you want to have more pipelines than the limit, you just need to add a new stack file. One stack file can accommodate a particular number of stacks, so you add a new one, then reference each of the pipelines to that stack, and then continue creating pipelines.

Everyone has their own deployment strategy, depending on their needs. But I think it's pretty popular, especially when you are doing AWS-type deployments. The tool is used by the developers, including the front-end and back-end ones, along with the DevOps engineers.

Currently, I think we are quite comfortable with whatever we have, but I think with time, we may extend its use depending on the needs of our management.

The solution's technical support responds whenever you have an issue, especially whenever you need something sorted out from their side. The engineers are always ready to help. If you have done a wrong configuration, the solution's technical support team will help you have uptime and support when you are offline for an extended time period. I rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

I use IBM QRadar.

When you are done setting it up, sometimes a dev pushes a change and then ends up missing something or adding a variable that doesn't really exist in the stack. Then it won't update, and it won't go through so that it will fail.

The initial deployment process is not very easy, but then you have to set so many things up. You need to have quite a number of files when you are setting up the CI/CD pipelines. You also need to know the approach that you want to use so that you don't end up using a strategy that will not work out very well with the expectations or with the requirements that have been set.

The solution is deployed on the cloud. You can deploy the application on VMs. For most of the production setup, it has to be a private cloud. For other test purposes, you can go to the public cloud to deal with different types of instances. If there are front-end applications that need to be accessed by the users, then it is better to go with the public cloud option as long as one does not have sensitive data.

The type of strategy we have when deploying the tool is something that will depend on the type of front-end and back-end applications. You have your branches where you are deploying from, and then you have a main area where you add all these configurations that you have added in the individual branches when you run to execute the creation of the pipelines and the deployment of the applications. For a well-prepared user, the tool is easy to deploy.

To deploy the tool, you just need to discuss it with your front-end application developer and hire a new back-end developer for the two applications that you need to deploy if you are doing both front-end and back-end there.

I don't have to maintain the tool once the pipeline is set up. As long as one observes exactly what the setup is like, which involves not adding new variables without communicating to the DevOps engineer, everything is pretty seamless.

For the maintenance part, there is a need to basically ensure that if there are any new variables that need to be added, the developers communicate to you with the actual variable or the value. With the variable names and the values, if you are doing deployments on an EC2 instance, you would need to have a look at if there are any changes in the libraries. You would need to also update your AMI. If you use AWS, then you would need to update your Amazon Machine Images (AMIs) so that when you are evaluating your pipeline, there is no clash because of the different versions of the libraries you run.

AWS charges you based on the number of pipelines you have and how active they are, and I also think that the root account user knows about all the price-related metrics. The tool offers the best value for the money one pays for it.

The configuration and setup of the tool are good areas.

For now, I think the tool has more advantages than disadvantages.

The tool is very easy to use for the setup, deployment, and continuous integration processes, so it is an effective product. There is not much need to maintain it. Initially, you need to know exactly how you want to map everything.

I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

The primary use case is for CICD pipelines. It is used to connect CodeBuild and CodeDeploy in a streamlined solution. The AWS CodePipeline only works with the code build and code deploy.

The integration with other services and notifications, along with the approval method for the production environment, helps ensure that the pipeline runs precisely when it should, avoiding unnecessary runs.

The integration with other services is valuable, just like CodeBuild and CodeDeploy. Also, the notification and approval approach in the production environment are very useful.

A bit more control over AWS CodePipeline would make it a better tool. Improved enhancements and features could make it more intuitive.

I have been working with CodePipeline for four years as an MSP and consultant.

If everything is set up properly, CodePipeline is a stable and reliable product. It depends on CodeBuild and CodeDeploy stability.

I would rate the scalability of CodePipeline as low since it is very dependent on CodeBuild and CodeDeploy. Its scalability is limited.

I have not communicated with the technical team of CodePipeline.

Neutral

I would rate the initial setup of CodePipeline as nine out of ten. It is generally easy, but there could be challenges in the first attempt.

I would rate the pricing for CodePipeline at a five out of ten. It depends on other services being used in conjunction with it. The pricing is a bundle.

I advise to go with test runs and see how everything is functioning. It's best not to integrate everything in one go. Challenges might arise while setting up initially.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

We use the product for CI/CD implementation and integration with services like CodeDeploy, AmazonMQ, CloudWatch, and Fargate.

The most valuable feature of AWS CodePipeline lies in its role as a comprehensive umbrella service, including developer tools like CodeDeploy, CodeBuild, and CodeCommit. It helps develop CI/CD implementations with centralized management of code building, deployment, and version control.

The product’s pricing needs improvement.

We have been using AWS CodePipeline for two years.

The platform is 100% stability.

The platform is scalable.

The product doesn’t need to be set up. It offers a predefined configuration and adequate functionality to manage the implementation.

The product generates a return on investment particularly in terms of time optimization and efficient resource management.

AWS does not require upfront licenses or complex payment structures. It is a straightforward approach where you pay for the resources you consume as they offer a subscription-based licensing model.

The cost depends on various factors, including your usage patterns, requirements, and how it compares to other cloud service providers (CSPs). In comparison to some other CSPs, AWS services are more expensive.

Before selecting AWS CodePipeline, we conducted a thorough evaluation of various cloud service providers (CSPs) and their respective CI/CD services. AWS emerged as the preferred choice after considering factors such as usage patterns, management features, and overall performance.

With the help of AWS CodePipeline, we can easily utilize CodeDeploy and CodeBuild services for deployment purposes. It provides high integration between cloud services and critical applications running on-premises. It helps manage all the sources on a single pane of glass.

For monitoring and managing deployment, it offers integration with CloudWatch.

I recommend it to developers and rate it a nine out of ten.

When you do the microservices, you can build from the source code and package it to the docker image. After that, you can deploy the docker image to the container which is also situated in the AWS CodePipeline. 

The product is a one-stop solution that you can use to integrate, deploy and host your application. 

AWS CodePipeline doesn't offer much room for customization. 

I have been using this solution for three years. 

I would rate the product's stability a ten out of ten. 

I would rate AWS CodePipeline's scalability a ten out of ten. We use the solution every day, 24/7 to its maximum potential. 

AWS CodePipeline's technical support is good but it comes with a price. It will take you seven percent to ten percent of your total monthly cloud consumption.

Positive

We used Jenkins, GitHub, and GitLab. We switched to AWS CodePipeline since we have an AWS environment and it is more convenient. 

I would rate the product's setup a seven out of ten. There is a lot of work to be done if you need to integrate it with other tools. The solution's setup takes only a couple of hours to complete. We automated the tool's deployment and maintenance. 

The product is cost-effective. 

I would rate the product's pricing a five out of ten. 

I would rate the product an eight out of ten. If you have a multi-cloud infrastructure, then you need to consider Jenkins, GitLab or GitHub. 

I use the solution in my company, and we implement it whenever the tool is required in a project.

The need for the tool depends on the requirement. Some customers require closed and compact CI/CD pipelines; in such cases, we prefer AWS CodePipeline as the best option since it will be in a suitable environment. If the customers want some free sources, we can go with free sources. In our company, we have multiple CI/CD tools as well, but that completely depends on how much security the customers require and how much of a closed environment is required. AWS CodePipeline has some of the best features provided. The tool provides ample options, so we can use AWS Secrets Manager on those things where we can use AWS STS for some of the things, which will be much more helpful when working with a closed and secured environment.

Actually, the tool has multiple valuable features. When it comes to security, we have ample options to secure credentials, or whatever crucial data is there that is not supposed to be exposed. We can keep things in multiple environments, so we can create some environment variables from AWS Secrets Manager. From the environment variables, we can create different environments. The aforementioned area consists of one of the best features of the tool. Regarding additional features, we can use cross-account deployment, one of the tool's best features. When it comes to cross-account deployment, keeping one centralized account and deploying multiple applications in a different account is trending nowadays.

I have not thought about what needs improvement in the tool, but as of now, I am good with the tool. I am satisfied with the tool's performance, and I never came across any feature that it doesn't have. Whenever the customer requires something from the tool, all the features are present in AWS CodePipeline. If there is any option available in AWS CodePipeline that can offer integration with different products like SonarQube instead of just having to provide some URLs to our customers, then that would be great. It will make it easy for the integration of code analysis, and things can be done easily. I want to see more integration options. The industry doesn't go for paid versions, like CodeGuru, and some of the industries expect us to implement or integrate their tools with free products like SonarQube, which is supposed to provide a very free and basic structure. One would rather go for SonarQube rather than CodeGuru or other such tools. It would be best if AWS CodePipeline provided multiple integration options directly by providing some URLs.

I have been using AWS CodePipeline for two years. My company has a partnership with Amazon.

I have not seen any bugs in the tool. Its performance is quite good, which is similar to how any other CI/CD tool is supposed to perform.

Many people in my company use the product, but since it is a service-based company, everything completely depends on the choices and selections made. We are just here as a mentor to give suggestions and explain the advantages of what you get if you use AWS CodePipeline, Jenkins, and other such tools to our customers. In our company, we just give guidance on the importance of each tool to our customers, but selecting a CI/CD tool depends on the customers based on their budgets and their use cases. But we prefer CI/CD because it's a compact environment where there are fewer vulnerabilities. There is not much hard coding, and there is much more security, which is a more secure manner for the CI/CD pipeline.

Around 80 percent of my company's customers prefer AWS CodePipeline.

Scalability or other such factors don't have an impact on the product. AWS CodePipeline is a CI/CD tool that takes care of continuous integration and deployment. Where you are supposed to deploy the things, like if you are deploying at the cluster level, for your applications, there may be a need for auto-scaling. For CI/CD, you generally don't require any auto-scaling.

I haven't spoken to the tool's support team about CI/CD and other such areas. Things. Our company has recognized the advantages of AWS. We normally have some discussions with AWS' support team, but it is all associated with issues at the production level whenever it goes beyond our limits. We have a word with AWS' support team. For CI/CD, we don't contact AWS, but we are capable of managing it.

In our company, we normally don't use the installation process directly. It is one of the services we can directly build. As we are not performing in an on-premises model and are mostly at the cloud level, there are not many requirements. It is just a matter of a few clicks that will be needed to set up and keep the tool ready. If you come to CloudFormation in Terraform, things are not very difficult, and we can easily do it.

I haven't come across any challenges when setting up the product.

The price of the product depends on how many times you run it. The tool offers a pay-as-you-go model. The CI/CD pipeline can be considered as something that gets triggered per day at least four to five times, but sometimes, for the triggering part, there will be a certain amount that will be there. If the triggering is for a purpose, the user will incur a cost, but setting up the things won't cost anything.

Whether I would recommend the product to others or not is something that depends on whether you have multiple deployments and multiple cross-account integrations and if many other things are there for the application. If you are using just standard deployment using VCS, then I would suggest that you go with AWS CodePipeline. If you just want a simple single application deployment, then I prefer that you go for Jenkins, which is free of cost or open source. If one is keeping a centralized account for deploying multiple accounts of your application, I suggest you use AWS CodePipeline.

It is very easy to learn to use the product, and it is not a big deal since you need to just set up the things, and writing in buildspec YAML is not a big deal. Anyone can do it, even if you have an additional feature, such as restricting access to AWS CodePipeline by providing YALM. AWS CodePipeline is easier than Jenkins. Writing in pipeline scripts is something that people feel can be very difficult, but with buildspec YAML, it's quite easy to build it and add some logic, making it a process that is much easier compared to all CI/CD tools.

Different applications can be enhanced with AWS CodePipeline.

I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

We use the solution to deploy different applications and connect third-party APIs to various projects. I commonly use the Jenkins CI/CD pipeline. I've used it to set up servers. The architecture is very complex and needs a lot of connections, storage, security, and network. We need CodePipeline to complete these processes faster.

I love the fact that the tool can be integrated with different applications. For example, we can integrate pipelines with Slack to schedule tasks and run a bot. If we want to get notified about changes in our server, we can link the pipeline with Slack. It creates a channel where we receive updates on what's happening on the server. It notifies us if the IP address has changed or if there is something wrong with the server. The integration with other applications is fabulous.

The setup time is a bit long. We need a lot of experience to work with it. We need a lot of troubleshooting experience. We need to contact support if things get out of hand.

I have been using the solution for a year and a half.

The tool is very stable. I have not had any issues with the applications I have deployed. I only faced issues during deployment.

The tool is very, very scalable. I rate the scalability a nine out of ten. We need only one engineer to do the updates.

The support team is good. The response is good. I've not had very complex problems, but for the problems I faced, I received good support.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward, but it is a bit difficult. The deployment takes five to ten minutes. It has a good latency.

People using the solution for the first time must have good experience in troubleshooting. If we do something wrong, we should be patient enough to solve it. We should not get frustrated. A good networking experience in AWS and a good knowledge of IP addresses will also be helpful. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.