RSpec vs Cucumber (RSpec stories)

If you haven't already, you might want to check out Dan North's excellent article, What's in a Story? as a starting point.

We have two main uses for Cucumber stories. First, because the story form is very specific it helps focus the product owner's articulation of the features he wants built. This is the "token for a conversation" use of stories, and would be valuable whether or not we implemented the stories in code. Second, when the process is working well enough that we have complete stories before we begin writing the feature (more of an ideal that we strive for than a daily reality), you have your acceptance criteria spelled out clearly and you know exactly what and how much to build.

In our Rails work, Cucumber stories do not substitute for rspec unit tests. The two go hand in hand. In practice, the unit tests tend to drive development of the models and controllers, and the stories tend to drive development of the views (we tend not to write rspec for our views) and provide a good test of the application as a whole from the user's perspective.

If you're working solo, the communication aspect may not be that interesting to you, but the integration testing you get from Cucumber might be. If you take advantage of webrat, writing Cucumber can be fast and painless for a lot of your basic functionality.

Think of it as a cycle:

Write your Cucumber feature, then while developing the pieces for that feature, write specs to complete the individual components. Continue completing specs until you've written enough functionality for the feature to pass, then write your next feature.