[cyberferret]

I've always wondered why Amazon's own CodePipeline service could not deploy a commit of a HTML/CSS static sites straight to S3. They can deploy from CodeCommit straight to Elastic Beanstalk easily enough, but for years I have been asking for an S3 bucket as a destination which would make deploying our static website a piece of cake.

As it is, we have had to use BitBucket as the repo for our website, and we use the Pipelines feature on there to deploy to S3. Would be nice not to have to use a third party service to do something that AWS's own infrastructure makes unreasonably complex and difficult.

[viklove]

I'm not sure I understand this comment. I have a simple script (under 100 lines) using the aws sdk that pushes my assets to an s3 bucket where my site is hosted. I'm able to trigger it with an npm script with a command `npm run deploy`.

[cyberferret]

I've found lots of scripts online to do it, but the issue is that we shouldn't really resort to scripting for this. CodePipeline already has a nice interface where I can choose the Elastic Beanstalk environment where I wish to deploy the code. Zero scripting required. Why can't they have a drop down where I can specify S3, and the Bucket name to deploy to as well?

After all, they offer S3 as a service where we can deploy static sites, so why not in their pipeline service offer an S3 bucket as a valid destination for the code?

My BitBucket pipeline I described above has less than 10 lines of YAML to define which S3 bucket to push the committed changes to, so already, a 3rd party workaround is 10x less code than your 'AWS only' workaround. This shouldn't be the case.

[bett3513]

AWS Amplify is the service that works as you’ve described.