@Noah_Clark is exactly right in that you can write capybara style specs using the rspec suite and that is the process we’ve moved to at thoughtbot. We follow the same ideal of testing but we’ve removed the extra layer of cucumber that we didn’t find much value in. That would be why @Chris_Bradley we did not cover Cucumber in your workshop. That was something we had done in the past and have since changed how we operate.
As for an overall view of how we test at thoughtbot, our process is usually focused around using rpsec. We would follow the same process that we use in our workshops. We start by writing a high level integration test and as we hit places in our classes that we are adding functionality, we spec those out using rspec unit tests. That is a very short overview mainly because the process can definitely change from situation to situation.
As for what is ‘wrong’ with the native test suite that ships with Rails, I don’t think there is anything wrong. We’ve found that rspec has a lot of benefits for making our tests easier to write, understand and maintain. It allows us to be more descriptive in our tests and allows us to explain why something is happening rather than explaining exactly how something happens.
I would recommend trying out MiniTest and seeing how it feels to you. I love rspec but that doesn’t mean I hold a grudge against MiniTest and I think it is a great framework.
@Noah_Clark we put our integration tests typically in a spec/features directory. How they are organized below that tends to vary from project to project. I’ve seen `spec/features/user and spec/features/admin’ before but I I have also seen it organized by category or what the tests are dealing with. On the whole, I’ve not heard of anyone from thoughtbot who has regretted the move to rspec. We usually write our rspec tests in a very descriptive way almost in the same language we would have used with cucumber, we simply omit the extra translation!