openclaw - 💡(How to fix) Fix [Docs/Config Bug]: channels.slack.thread.requireExplicitMention is documented but rejected by 2026.4.5 [1 participants]

Official PRs (…)
ON THIS PAGE

Recommended Tools

×6

Utilities matched from this issue’s tags and category — try them while you read without losing context.

GitHub issue graph ai analysis

Paste a GitHub issue URL. We fetch that issue, discover linked issues from bodies/comments/timeline, collect linked pull requests, and produce a structured English report.

The report is written in English Markdown for sharing and archival.

Helpful · Quick feedback

Loading…
GitHub stats
openclaw/openclaw#63389Fetched 2026-04-09 07:54:24
View on GitHub
Comments
0
Participants
1
Timeline
0
Reactions
0
Author
Participants

The official Slack docs list channels.slack.thread.requireExplicitMention, but openclaw 2026.4.5 rejects that key as invalid config.

Docs page:

Root Cause

The official Slack docs list channels.slack.thread.requireExplicitMention, but openclaw 2026.4.5 rejects that key as invalid config.

Docs page:

Code Example

{
  "channels": {
    "slack": {
      "enabled": true,
      "mode": "socket",
      "requireMention": true,
      "allowBots": true,
      "replyToMode": "all",
      "groupPolicy": "open",
      "thread": {
        "requireExplicitMention": true
      }
    }
  }
}

---

Config invalid
File: ~/.openclaw/openclaw.json
Problem:
  - channels.slack.thread: Unrecognized key: "requireExplicitMention"
RAW_BUFFERClick to expand / collapse

Summary

The official Slack docs list channels.slack.thread.requireExplicitMention, but openclaw 2026.4.5 rejects that key as invalid config.

Docs page:

Version

  • OpenClaw 2026.4.5

Minimal repro

Use this config snippet:

{
  "channels": {
    "slack": {
      "enabled": true,
      "mode": "socket",
      "requireMention": true,
      "allowBots": true,
      "replyToMode": "all",
      "groupPolicy": "open",
      "thread": {
        "requireExplicitMention": true
      }
    }
  }
}

Then start or verify the gateway.

Actual result

The gateway rejects the config and fails health/startup with:

Config invalid
File: ~/.openclaw/openclaw.json
Problem:
  - channels.slack.thread: Unrecognized key: "requireExplicitMention"

In our case this caused openclaw gateway health to fail until the key was manually removed from the live config.

Expected result

One of these should be true:

  1. channels.slack.thread.requireExplicitMention is a supported config key and should validate successfully, or
  2. the docs should be updated to remove or qualify that setting for current releases.

Notes

I found related Slack/thread issues, but not one specifically for this docs/runtime mismatch.

extent analysis

TL;DR

Remove the requireExplicitMention key from the channels.slack.thread config to resolve the validation error.

Guidance

  • Verify that the requireExplicitMention key is not supported in OpenClaw 2026.4.5 by checking the official documentation or release notes.
  • Update the config to remove the unsupported key, as shown in the minimal repro snippet without the requireExplicitMention line.
  • Test the gateway health/startup after removing the key to ensure it validates successfully.
  • Consider reporting the documentation mismatch to the OpenClaw team to ensure the docs are updated for future releases.

Example

{
  "channels": {
    "slack": {
      "enabled": true,
      "mode": "socket",
      "requireMention": true,
      "allowBots": true,
      "replyToMode": "all",
      "groupPolicy": "open",
      "thread": {}
    }
  }
}

Notes

The provided solution assumes that the requireExplicitMention key is not necessary for the current functionality. If this key is required, further investigation into alternative config options or waiting for an update that supports this key may be necessary.

Recommendation

Apply workaround: Remove the requireExplicitMention key from the config, as it is not supported in the current version of OpenClaw.

Vote matrix · Quick signals

Works
Did the solution work? Tap to confirm.
Easy Fix
Was it a quick fix?
Time Saver
Did it save you time?
Blocking
Was it severely blocking?
Common Issue
Are others likely hitting this too?
Flaky / Intermittent
Is it intermittent?
Verified / Reproducible
Can you reproduce it reliably?
Loading…

Still need to ship something?

×6

Another batch ranked right after the header list — different links, same matching logic.

Back to top recommendations

TRENDING