Last week I started on a new project — venture, perhaps — which means I’m in the thick of figuring out all the things you take for granted when you join an established project. I’m trying to balance pragmatism and perfectionism: for example, I don’t need to scale to 1MM users yet (I probably don’t need to scale to 10 yet), so spinning up a Kubernetes cluster doesn’t make sense. And, I’m not an animal, so it’s not like I’m going to SSH into a machine and build it by hand. So I’m trying to look at it from the perspective of “what do we need for the next 3 months?”
One of the questions was about CI/CD. I’ve previously used Travis and Circle CI, and they’re both fine. They work, they have the features you want, they have outages when you curse them, etc. As I was looking around, though, I came across the AWS offerings: the confusingly named Code Build and Code Pipeline. (There’s also a Code Deploy; who could say why you’d chose a Deploy over, say, a Pipeline?)
It took me a while to figure out how the two are different, and how they work together. My present understanding is that Code Build provides “continuous integration”, and Code Pipeline provides “continuous delivery”. In my past experience these have been squished together into a single thing. Which is fine, except that they’re not quite the same thing.
Continuous Integration (CI) ensures that your code builds, tests pass, etc whenever you make a change. In other words, it ensures that your change integrates with the existing code base.
Continuous Delivery (CD) takes your code and gets it onto servers. This may involve deploying Docker containers, pushing Serverless code to Lambda, etc.
In the Code Build / Code Pipeline world, the Build is defined in the source repository (much like the Circle or Travis configuration I’ve seen before), and the Pipeline is configured as infrastructure, outside of the code. I’m using Terraform, which means I can also treat this as code, albeit in a different language.
The Build is defined by a
buildspec.yml file, which defines commands to run for each phase. Unlike CircleCI, where you can define arbitrary steps, the phases are more rigid here: install, pre-build, build, post-build. The build spec also defines the artifacts that the build produces, and the artifacts are what downstream processes can consume.
We’re only two weeks in, but one thing that I liked about CodeBuild is that the pricing required very little thought: you pay per minute, regardless of how many things you run. This is in contrast to CircleCI, where you have to think about parallelism: it’s free for one-at-a-time, but after that you pay per parallel build. More specifically, you pay per potential parallel build.
In our case the Pipeline takes the artifact from Code Build, and deploys it to Elastic Beanstalk. I suspect Beanstalk is the first thing we’ll throw away infrastructure wise, but it’s nice for now: we’re able to configure an EC2 instance with everything running on it we need, and scale that up behind an ALB. Because we’re trying to describe all of our infrastructure with Terraform, the hardest part was getting it to use an ALB rather than a classic ELB. This required an Option to be defined in the Environment declaration:
namespace = "aws:elasticbeanstalk:environment"
name = "LoadBalancerType"
value = "application"
Overall I’m pretty happy with CodeBuild and CodePipeline. We’ve decided to re-evaluate early decisions in a month or so, and I’ll post an update about whether we stick with it then.