OpenClaw migration cron archival when config.cron is absent
Cluster 6418. Data as of
Nothing open on GitHub. Fix merged in #6524 on 9 Apr 2026. Check it covers your case.
The short answer
- Known?
- Yes. 3 related items grouped here, 1 issue already closed.
- Fix event
- A fix was merged to main in PR #6524. Check it covers your case. No release data is tracked.
- Tracker
- The maintainers' tracker marks this
resolved, deciding PR #6524. That is separate from the fix event. - Still open
- Nothing open on GitHub.
Members concern the OpenClaw migration not archiving the cron store (~/.openclaw/cron/jobs.json) when openclaw.json lacks a cron section. Two entries share an identical pull request title and one is a bug report; their resolution status is not established here.
Open issues0
Open PRs0
Fixes on record
-
#6524 fix(migration): archive OpenClaw cron store when config.cron is missing
files:
optional-skills/migration/openclaw-migration/scripts/openclaw_to_hermes.py,tests/skills/test_openclaw_migration.py
1 PR closed without merging
From the close comments: merged via another change 1
-
#6423 fix(migration): archive OpenClaw cron store when config.cron is missing · merged via another change →
#6524
Closed issues · 1
- Closed#6418[Bug]: OpenClaw migration skips cron job archival when openclaw.json has no cron section but ~/.openclaw/cron/jobs.json exists
How this cluster was grouped
-
Link evidence (
structural links throughout): every member is connected by structural evidence: shared changed files, or a closing/superseded reference. -
Pairwise link density
0.67: the share of item pairs that carry a link, counting a structural link in full and a relevance-only link at 0.36.1.00means every pair is linked.
Pick up a Lab task
Check whether a fix covers the open issues here, with your own agent. Bring back evidence for maintainers.
Open the LabAt a glance
- Merged PRs
- #6524
- Closed issues
- 1
- Attempts
- 1 PR closed without merging
- Fix link checked
- 9 Apr 2026. This confirmation is old and may be out of date (a revert or reopen would not have invalidated it here); re-verify.