<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Reform on Pi Stack</title>
    <link>https://www.pistack.xyz/tags/reform/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Reform on Pi Stack</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 30 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://www.pistack.xyz/tags/reform/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>dry-validation vs ActiveModel::Validations vs Reform in 2026: Which Ruby Validation Library?</title>
      <link>https://www.pistack.xyz/posts/2026-08-30-ruby-validation-libraries-dry-validation-activemodel-reform-comparison/</link>
      <pubDate>Sun, 30 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://www.pistack.xyz/posts/2026-08-30-ruby-validation-libraries-dry-validation-activemodel-reform-comparison/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Every Ruby developer eventually hits the same wall: the model file bloats with 40 lines of &lt;code&gt;validates&lt;/code&gt; macros, the controller starts duplicating rules for API input, and nobody can tell you where validation logic is &lt;em&gt;supposed&lt;/em&gt; to live. In 2026 the Ruby ecosystem offers three mature answers — ActiveModel::Validations baked into Rails, the dry-rb ecosystem&amp;rsquo;s dry-validation, and Trailblazer&amp;rsquo;s Reform form objects — and they represent fundamentally different philosophies about where validation belongs. This guide compares them with real code, current GitHub data, and migration advice so you can stop guessing.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
