AWS CodeBuild Reviews

We have it on various client projects and we rarely use it individually. It forms part of an entire pipeline committed in CodeCommit along with all the customers' code. Then, it's picked up by CodeBuild in the pipeline to build the site, update the sites, and update the services with CloudFormation scripts. This could be for a simple serverless website or more advanced projects where we need to build an image in Java or .NET.

The most important feature is that it's self-contained in an AWS account, and it's all linked to the customer's AWS account. You manage the identities through the AWS account, and AWS looks after the security and availability of the service. That's the key.

The front-end interface and the management are somewhat challenging, and there's a lot of space for improvement. Customers are expecting the graphic user interface to be at the level of GitHub or GitLab, but it's really not. It's quite a struggle with that part of the service.

We have been using it since inception, probably starting in 2015 or 2016.

It is difficult to say whether issues were because of resource limitations or waiting times as such. I would rate it a six out of ten due to some intertwining issues with processing speed.

Scalability has been satisfactory, although there are issues with CodeBuild having insufficient CPU allocated compared to other offerings like Bamboo from Atlassian, which allows more processing power. This limitation means that sometimes we can't get more than what's allocated by AWS.

For enterprise clients, especially large groups who have multiple country deployments and multi-region setups, it makes sense to have it in the AWS ecosystem.

I'd rate the solution five out of ten.

A normal use case for CodeBuild is to use it with the code pipeline for proper CI/CD. Normally, it's used to make a CI/CD pipeline.

A valuable feature is the support for third-party repositories such as Bitbucket, GitLab, or GitHub. Another valuable feature is the logging feature, which saves all the build logs in CloudWatch. This makes it easy to track or trace the logs of all the builds and helps in the troubleshooting process.

Notifications could be added, or SNS integration could be included so that notifications can be received on every build, whether the build fails or succeeds.

I have used the solution for around three to four years.

It's a very lengthy process to set it up, but when it's set up, it never experiences any outages or downtimes. It is highly stable and never gets broken again after the initial setup.

AWS is so flexible that it works with all providers, which becomes very helpful in scaling. Generally, it's used in the software development process, and in the development and deployment processes, so the scalability supports different workflow volumes.

I rated the setup seven out of ten as it's a long process. Everything is very simple, so there is no big hassle. That said, it's a very lengthy process.

CodeBuild doesn't have a price for itself; it is included in a bundle with different services. I would rate the cost of this bundle, where CodeBuild is included, as five. It's rather affordable.

AWS CodeBuild is a simple service, and it doesn't need any specific advice or rules to follow. Everything is properly defined while configuring CodeBuild, and AWS can be used as optional documentation.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

Our main use case for AWS CodeBuild is building our microservice-based application in the IT industry.

The tool is used to build and test code. I find its biggest advantages are elasticity and reliability. We can easily assign as many computing resources as needed to build our code, which is much simpler than traditional methods that require server upgrades. It's a serverless tool, so it's very flexible and elastic.

Integration with other AWS services and third-party tools like GitLab or Jenkins is simple. I haven't faced any challenges using AWS CodeBuild. It's straightforward and communicates well with CodeCommit for code storage, or it can fetch code from GitHub.

For improvement, I'd suggest more build instance-type options. There's a big jump from 15 gigabytes of RAM to 150, and I'd like something in between as the larger option is too expensive for our needs.

I have been working with the product for four years. 

The solution is highly stable; I rate it a ten out of ten. 

The tool is very scalable, and I rate it a ten out of ten. More than 30 developers on our team indirectly use AWS CodeBuild in our development process. Developers push their code to CodeCommit, which goes through the CodeBuild pipeline.

We're very satisfied with AWS support. We're on the Enterprise plan, which I'd rate ten out of ten for support quality.

Positive

Setting the tool up is relatively easy—I'd rate it eight out of ten—but some AWS knowledge is required.

AWS CodeBuild is part of a full CICD suite in AWS, working alongside CodeCommit, CodeDeploy, and CodePipeline. It's a cloud solution where CodeCommit stores the code, AWS CodeBuild builds it, CodeDeploy deploys it, and CodePipeline configures all these steps as needed.

The tool saves us money as it's on-demand, only working when triggered.

AWS CodeBuild is free. We only pay for our code's compute resources during the build process. For example, if our code takes ten minutes to build, we only pay for those ten minutes of computing time. CodeDeploy and CodePipeline are free because they're serverless and don't require computing resources. CodeCommit has minimal costs for storing code.

If you run AWS applications, I advise those considering AWS CodeBuild to use the entire CodePipeline Suite (CodeCommit, AWS CodeBuild, and CodeDeploy). It's a great CICD tool compared to third-party options. I've used GitLab and Jenkins before, and while they're good, I prefer AWS solutions because they're reliable and fully managed, offering the best SLA in the market.

I always recommend going with native tools when possible. Overall, I'd rate AWS CodeBuild ten out of ten.