We make several changes in the gantt view in order to ease the customization of the gantt popover buttons:

- a tag "footer" can be used inside the template "gantt-popover" to define buttons like it is done in a form view arch:

```xml
  <templates>
    <div t-name="gantt-popover">
        <footer>
            <button name="unlink" type="object" string="Delete" icon="fa-trash" />
        </footer>
    </div>
  </templates>
```

  By default the buttons defined in the footer will be rendered after the generic buttons (e.g. the "Edit" button). An attribute "replace" can be set to true on the footer to make the generic buttons to be removed.

- buttons can also be used in the popover body itself like in a form view arch:

```xml
  <templates>
    <div t-name="gantt-popover">
        <button name="unlink" type="object" string="Delete" icon="fa-trash" />
    </div>
  </templates>
```

- if js code is necessary, it is also easier to add new generic buttons via the new prop buttons of the gantt popover. This has been used to simplify the code of the gantt view extensions in appointment and  project_enterprise.

Task ID: `3684499`

Co-authored-by: Aaron Bohy <aab@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Duckerts-Antoine <dam@odoo.com>

**Steps to reproduce:**

- Install `documents_project` module (for test purposes)
- Create a new activity type with:
  - `action`: `Upload Document`
  - `folder_id`: `Internal`
  - `model_id`: `Task`
- Go to settings and enable `Centralize files attached to projects and tasks` (from 16.0, set a default folder on the project)
- Go to any task and add a new activity with the new activity type
- Click on `Upload Document` and select a file

**Issue:**

  Access right error message.

**Cause:**

Simple explanation:
2 documents are created (one on the activity creation and one on the attachment upload) and the attachment is linked to the second document. When trying to fisrt unlink the second document and then link the attachment to the first document, the attachment is already unlinked.

Detailed explanation:
When creating the activity, if a folder_id is set on the activity, an empty document is first created with the request_activity_id. https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/a23a18681bddc5995c5dac8cacfb074c06fc5ea8/documents/models/mail_activity.py#L46

When uploading the file, if the related record model is an inherit of `documents.mixin` model and the documents settings (in this case `Document Project Settings`) are activated, it will create the document with the attachment.
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/2df654e8cb08d528976d5f1d24397574798a5cad/documents/models/ir_attachment.py#L63

Then, in the action done, we will unlink the last document record created and try to link it's attachment (already unlinked) to the first document record (with the `request_activity_id`). https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/2df654e8cb08d528976d5f1d24397574798a5cad/documents/models/mail_activity.py#L33

Since the following commit, when unlinking a document, it unlink also it's attachment: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/a999f2c32ab542ca7aa44cf34970dc7cca4fdaf8

**Solution:**

Override the upload route (`/mail/attachment/upload`) so that it skip the creation of the second document (by adding `no_document` to the context) if an activity ID is available and that a document with a `request_activity_id` with the same activity ID already exists.

COM PR: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/159943

opw-3458850

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#63220
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#59796

Currently, several l10n_pe_edi tests are failing every night. This is
due to:
- Error 98 meaning that not enough time is given to the remote sever to
process cancellation requests -> wait and check several times before
asserting
- Duplicated name: Sometimes, some invoices have duplicated names. We
make sure it is not possible by 'incrementing' the name for each invoice
we create.

-----

1. `test_send_delivery_guide` was failing because the picking vehicule
was not set up properly in the test. After this was fix, another issue
appeared: the company needed proper credential to connect to the SUNAT.
Since those were not available, the function connecting to SUNAT has
been patched to simulate a basic answer from SUNAT.

2. `test_generate_delivery_guide`'s expected document has been updated
to include the vehicule set up in the previous step.

3. Since there is no more call to an external API. The `external` and
`l10n_external` tags are not necessary anymore. This allows to group
both tests under the same class.

task-3718645

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#63291
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#62452

When user clicks on contracts smart button in application and if application has
two contracts (one archived and one active), a traceback will appear.

Steps to reproduce the error:
- Install "hr_contract_salary" module
- Go to Recruitment > Applications > All Applications > Create new application >
  Generate Offer > Select Contract Template > Send By Email > Send
- Click on Offers > Salary Configurator > Fill all required fields >
  Review Contract & Sign > Validate & Send Completed Document
- Open that application > Contracts > Create new contract > Save
- Archived one contract > Click on Contract smart button

Traceback:
```
ValueError: Expected singleton: hr.contract(27, 29)
  File "odoo/http.py", line 2253, in __call__
    response = request._serve_db()
  File "odoo/http.py", line 1829, in _serve_db
    return self._transactioning(_serve_ir_http, readonly=ro)
  File "odoo/http.py", line 1849, in _transactioning
    return service_model.retrying(func, env=self.env)
  File "odoo/service/model.py", line 134, in retrying
    result = func()
  File "odoo/http.py", line 1827, in _serve_ir_http
    return self._serve_ir_http(rule, args)
  File "odoo/http.py", line 1834, in _serve_ir_http
    response = self.dispatcher.dispatch(rule.endpoint, args)
  File "odoo/http.py", line 2059, in dispatch
    result = self.request.registry['ir.http']._dispatch(endpoint)
  File "odoo/addons/base/models/ir_http.py", line 220, in _dispatch
    result = endpoint(**request.params)
  File "odoo/http.py", line 740, in route_wrapper
    result = endpoint(self, *args, **params_ok)
  File "addons/web/controllers/dataset.py", line 42, in call_button
    action = self._call_kw(model, method, args, kwargs)
  File "addons/web/controllers/dataset.py", line 34, in _call_kw
    return call_kw(request.env[model], method, args, kwargs)
  File "odoo/api.py", line 458, in call_kw
    result = getattr(recs, name)(*args, **kwargs)
  File "home/odoo/src/enterprise/saas-17.2/hr_contract_salary/models/hr_applicant.py", line 59, in action_show_proposed_contracts
    "res_id": self.env['hr.contract'].search([["applicant_id", "=", self.id], '|', ["active", "=", False], ["active", "=", True]]).id,
  File "odoo/fields.py", line 5182, in __get__
    raise ValueError("Expected singleton: %s" % record)
```

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/504b3c66a9a8d142b89f9c873675ec65fdb43dd0/hr_contract_salary/models/hr_applicant.py#L59
Here when application has two contracts (one is archived and one is active),
So when it tries to access the id of 2 records.
It will lead to the above traceback.

sentry-5350130147

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#62627

Steps to reproduce
==================

- Open a product form
- Open Studio
- Remove the "Internal Notes" block from "General Information"
- Add a new field

=> The normalized view contains many operations, it should only contain one move and one insertion

Cause of the issue
==================

The normalization compares the original view with the view with all operations applied. To do this, it stringifies every node and then does a textual diff between the original and modified versions.

The issue in this case is that there are multiple ways to represent a diff.

In this example, we remove the first group

```xml
<form>
    <group/>
    <group/>
</form>
```

```xml
<xpath expr="/form/group" position="replace"/>
```

The before stringified view is represented as

```
/form/group
/form/group[@closed]
/form/group
/form/group[@closed]
```

The after stringified view is represented as

```
/form/group
/form/group[@closed]
```

There are two ways to represent this diff

```diff
- /form/group
- /form/group[@closed]
  /form/group
  /form/group[@closed]
```

```diff
  /form/group
- /form/group[@closed]
- /form/group
  /form/group[@closed]
```

In this case, we only want the first one, but the second one is generated.

Solution
========

We can assign an id to every node before performing the diff, this way, the nodes are uniquely represented.

The before stringified view will be represented as

```
/form#1/group#2
/form#1/group#2[@closed]
/form#1/group#3
/form#1/group#3[@closed]
```

The after stringified view is represented as

```
/form#1/group#3
/form#1/group#3[@closed]
```

The diff can now only be represented in one way

```diff
- /form#1/group#2
- /form#1/group#2[@closed]
  /form#1/group#3
  /form#1/group#3[@closed]
```

opw-3888345
opw-3924997

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#63047

**Current behavior:**
If you create a SEPA report for an employee that has address
information in their `hr.employee` record but not their
`res.partner` record, the creditor address will not use the
`hr.employee` information- the corresponding XML node will not
be included.

**Expected behavior:**
The employee address should be in the report if they have one
listed in their HR information.

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Install the `test_l10n_be_hr_payroll` module, switch to
     'My Belgian Company'

2. In the Employee application, go to an employee (e.g., Bernice
     Jensen) and make sure their listed bank account is verified
     to be able to receive payments

3. In the Payroll application, create a new `To Pay` record for
     the employee from step 2, register it, then create the
     payment report

4. In the Exported File notebook tab, you can see that there is
     no Creditor Address listed in the XML Sepa Report

**Cause of the issue:**
The report builder constructs the creditor address only from
the `res.partner` record.

**Fix:**
Extend the postal address construction such that we get an
address from a partner's employee record (when applicable). The
information should not be mix-and-matched; we will use whichever
address has the most complete information.

opw-3716705

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#62934
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#58743