DOP-C02 · Question #165
A company is building a web and mobile application that uses a serverless architecture powered by AWS Lambda and Amazon API Gateway. The company wants to fully automate the backend Lambda deployment…
The correct answer is C. Create two AWS CodePipeline configurations for test and production environments. Configure the. Explanation Option C is correct because it creates two separate CodePipeline configurations (one for test, one for production), where the test pipeline is configured with automatic deployment triggered by CodeCommit branch pushes, while the production pipeline requires a manual…
Question
A company is building a web and mobile application that uses a serverless architecture powered by AWS Lambda and Amazon API Gateway. The company wants to fully automate the backend Lambda deployment based on code that is pushed to the appropriate environment branch in an AWS CodeCommit repository. The deployment must have the following:
- Separate environment pipelines for testing and production
- Automatic deployment that occurs for test environments only
Which steps should be taken to meet these requirements?
Options
- AConfigure a new AWS CodePipeline service. Create a CodeCommit repository for each
- BCreate two AWS CodePipeline configurations for test and production environments. Configure the
- CCreate two AWS CodePipeline configurations for test and production environments. Configure the
- DCreate an AWS CodeBuild configuration for test and production environments. Configure the
How the community answered
(67 responses)- A10% (7)
- B4% (3)
- C67% (45)
- D18% (12)
Explanation
Explanation
Option C is correct because it creates two separate CodePipeline configurations (one for test, one for production), where the test pipeline is configured with automatic deployment triggered by CodeCommit branch pushes, while the production pipeline requires a manual approval action before deployment - perfectly satisfying both requirements of environment isolation and automatic-only test deployments.
Why the distractors are wrong:
- Option A creates separate CodeCommit repositories per environment, which is unnecessary overhead and not the recommended pattern; a single repo with environment branches is the standard approach.
- Option B is similar to C but likely misconfigures the trigger mechanism, either applying automatic deployment to both environments or failing to enforce manual approval for production.
- Option D uses CodeBuild alone, which handles building/testing code but lacks the orchestration, approval gates, and deployment pipeline capabilities that CodePipeline provides - CodeBuild is a component within a pipeline, not a replacement for it.
Memory Tip
Think "Pipeline = Orchestrator, Build = Worker" - CodePipeline manages the flow and approvals, CodeBuild does the heavy lifting. For multi-environment setups, always use separate pipelines with manual approval gates protecting production, triggered by branch-specific events in CodeCommit.
Topics
Community Discussion
No community discussion yet for this question.