step to reproduce:
- create a invoice and confirm it
- remove due date from it and save it 
- ensure the confirmed invoice do not payment term or due date
- open aged receivable report
- open this entry 
<img width="1599" height="238" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/010f97f4-0d50-4e5a-9366-ae67d17e2bb7" />


Observation:
- on clicking the entry, when redirected to list view, there are `0` records.

Issue:
- The query which is used to display data on report uses `COALESCE(account_move_line.date_maturity, account_move_line.date)`

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/ffc329e4ff2bd6512164ecd4206210fd5c9264b9/account_reports/models/account_aged_partner_balance.py#L222-L226

- while the method `_build_domain_from_period` uses only `date_maturity` in domain redirecting to list view
- This creates inconsistencies between two. 
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/ffc329e4ff2bd6512164ecd4206210fd5c9264b9/account_reports/models/account_aged_partner_balance.py#L383-L394

opw-5237298

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#99883

Currently, an error occurs when creating a time off request for an employee.

Steps to Reproduce:

 - Install the `hr_holiday` module.
 - Go to `Management > Time Off`.
 - Create a `new time off` and `remove the start date`.
 - Now `change the employee`.

`AttributeError: 'bool' object has no attribute 'date'`

This error occurs when creating a time off request for an employee. If the start date is removed and then the employee is changed, the compute method [1] runs to determine whether the time off can be approved and to update the states [2]. During this process, the system checks whether the time off date is in the past, and since the start date is missing, it results in the error [3].

This commit ensures that the system only checks whether the time off is in the past when a start date is provided.

[1]- https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/aa53689d3c593a8a41479c51edc2b01e3c284f96/addons/hr_holidays/models/hr_leave.py#L594-L597

[2]- https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/aa53689d3c593a8a41479c51edc2b01e3c284f96/addons/hr_holidays/models/hr_leave.py#L1279

[3]- https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/aa53689d3c593a8a41479c51edc2b01e3c284f96/addons/hr_holidays/models/hr_leave.py#L1237

No Task ID

---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#238281

## Issue:
When a fiscal position should apply based on the address provided during Express Checkout, it was not applied automatically
The correct fiscal position only appeared after reloading the checkout page
This issue affects public users using the eCommerce with Stripe Express Checkout

## Cause:
The fiscal position was correctly determined during the `availableCarriers` computation, but it was not propagated to the payment request itself
As a result, prices and taxes were only updated after a full page reload

## Steps to reproduce:
- Configure Stripe with Express Checkout (e.g., Google Pay)
- Create a fiscal position with automatic detection (Country = US, Tax mapping: 15% → 0%)
- Create a product using the 15% tax
- Go to the website shop and add the product to the cart
- Use Express Checkout with a US address
- Observe that the fiscal position is not applied unless the page is reloaded

opw-5018238

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#238690
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#236832

**Steps to reproduce:**
* Install and activate the **Uruguayan Localization** for the company.
* Create a contact located in Uruguay.
* Create an invoice for this customer and set **Document Type = 111 (e-Invoice)**.
* From the invoice's gear icon, create a **Debit Note**.

**Observed behavior:**
* The debit note is automatically assigned **Document Type 111 (e-Invoice)**, even though it should use **113 (e-Invoice Debit Note)**.
* Attempting to change the document type manually only shows 113 as an option, confirming the debit note should not have been set to 111.

**Cause:**
* `_compute_l10n_latam_document_type()` applies a rule that assigns Document Type **111** to all Uruguay electronic invoices with RUT identification.
* This logic does **not** check whether the move is a **debit note** (`m.debit_origin_id`), and therefore incorrectly overrides the expected debit note document type.
* The override prevents the correct selection (internal_type == *debit_note*) from being applied.

**Fix:**
* Add a condition in the automatic e-Invoice assignment logic.
* Debit notes now bypass the e-Invoice assignment and fall through to the parent method, which correctly assigns **Document Type 113**.

opw-5154599

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#100938

Currently, an error occurs when trying to create a consolidated invoice for 
multiple POS orders associated with the same customer.

**Steps to reproduce:**

- Install the `l10n_sa_pos` module and switch to the `SA company`.
- Create two POS orders for the `same customer` without invoicing at checkout.
- Close the POS session and go to `Point of Sale` > `Orders`.
- Select both orders > click `Create Invoice` > `confirm` the action. (Make sure `Consolidated Billing` is enabled)

**Error:**
`ValueError: Expected singleton: pos.order(8, 7)`

**Root cause:**
At [1], the code accesses `self.date_order`, but when `consolidated billing` is 
enabled, self contains multiple POS orders, causing an `error`.

**Fix:**
This commit prevents the error by ensuring that the `current datetime` 
is assigned when creating a `consolidated invoice`, same as [2].

[1]:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/583bacdc8ad2b87b99b11d1e12dacf6e42edf22b/addons/l10n_sa_pos/models/pos_order.py#L13

[2]:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/583bacdc8ad2b87b99b11d1e12dacf6e42edf22b/addons/point_of_sale/models/pos_order.py#L828-L832

opw-5266908

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#237677

step to reproduce:
- create a invoice and confirm it
- remove due date from it and save it 
- ensure the confirmed invoice do not payment term or due date
- open aged receivable report
- open this entry 
<img width="1599" height="238" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/010f97f4-0d50-4e5a-9366-ae67d17e2bb7" />


Observation:
- on clicking the entry, when redirected to list view, there are `0` records.

Issue:
- The query which is used to display data on report uses `COALESCE(account_move_line.date_maturity, account_move_line.date)`

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/ffc329e4ff2bd6512164ecd4206210fd5c9264b9/account_reports/models/account_aged_partner_balance.py#L222-L226

- while the method `_build_domain_from_period` uses only `date_maturity` in domain redirecting to list view
- This creates inconsistencies between two. 
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/ffc329e4ff2bd6512164ecd4206210fd5c9264b9/account_reports/models/account_aged_partner_balance.py#L383-L394

opw-5237298

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#99883

…n batch billed on ordered qty

**Problem:**
When the picking of a purchase order (of a product billed on ordered quantity) is split into different
moves and put in a batch, at batch validation, svls are created with the wrong values.

 **Steps to reproduce:**
    - enable "Batch, Wave & Cluster Transfers" settings
    - create a storable product with a standard price of 1
    - set the category as avco
    - in the Purchase tab select the control policy as
    "on ordered quantities"
    - create and confirm a purchase order for 50 of this product
    - on the Receipt, change the quantity to 20 and split the
    picking
    - go back the the PO and create and confirm a bill for
    the full amount
    - click on the receipt smart button
    - select the two pickings and then the 'Action' button
    - select add to batch
    - check 'new batch transfer' and confirm
    - open the batch and validate it
    - open stock valuation
    
**Current behavior:**
    the newly created svls have total values of
    50 and 50.10

**Expected behavior:**
    it should be 20 and 30
    
**Cause of the issue:**
When the batch is validated, _action_done is called 
on the two stock moves.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/dc57ea4d306f8745d37f2c5d2c3d3fa4bcaf7253/addons/stock/models/stock_picking.py#L1258
In the stock_account override: 
- first the super method is called
As a consequence the state of the two moves becomes 'done'
and the qty_received of the linked purchase order line becomes 50.
- then product_price_update_before_done is called before creating
the svls.

Inside product_price_update_before_done we call _get_price_unit.
In the purchase_stock override of _get_price_unit : 
- because the super method of action_done was already called, 
qty_received of the purchase order line is 50, so _get_qty_received_without_self
will return 30. 
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/dc57ea4d306f8745d37f2c5d2c3d3fa4bcaf7253/addons/purchase_stock/models/stock_move.py#L50
So received_qty is 30 and later remaining_qty will be 20
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/dc57ea4d306f8745d37f2c5d2c3d3fa4bcaf7253/addons/purchase_stock/models/stock_move.py#L86
- but because no svl was created yet receipt_value will stay 0 and later 
remaining_value will be 50
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/dc57ea4d306f8745d37f2c5d2c3d3fa4bcaf7253/addons/purchase_stock/models/stock_move.py#L55-L63
Therefore price_unit will be 2.5 (50/20) instead of 1 

**fix**
We do not take into account the move(s) of the 
same batch in the remaining value (because svls are not created yet)
so we should not  take them into account in the remaining quantity.

opw-5179581

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#238222
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#235601

## Issue:
When a fiscal position should apply based on the address provided during Express Checkout, it was not applied automatically
The correct fiscal position only appeared after reloading the checkout page
This issue affects public users using the eCommerce with Stripe Express Checkout

## Cause:
The fiscal position was correctly determined during the `availableCarriers` computation, but it was not propagated to the payment request itself
As a result, prices and taxes were only updated after a full page reload

## Steps to reproduce:
- Configure Stripe with Express Checkout (e.g., Google Pay)
- Create a fiscal position with automatic detection (Country = US, Tax mapping: 15% → 0%)
- Create a product using the 15% tax
- Go to the website shop and add the product to the cart
- Use Express Checkout with a US address
- Observe that the fiscal position is not applied unless the page is reloaded

opw-5018238

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#238690
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#236832

BUG 1:
---------
**steps to reproduce**:
1. Install documents
2. Open any document
3. Go to Action > Rename
4. Rename the document
5. Preview it and read the name showed there

**issue**:
When previewing the document, it still shows the old attachment name.

**observation**:
When renaming a document, only the document name was updated. The attachment name remained unchanged, which caused inconsistencies:

1. In the All Records section, the document name is displayed correctly. https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/459e8ddaf6f67a556d35bf00e0fbb68eb1500a94/documents/views/documents_document_views.xml#L130

2. But in the Preview, the old attachment name was still shown, as it is taken from the attachment:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/459e8ddaf6f67a556d35bf00e0fbb68eb1500a94/documents/static/src/views/hooks.js#L373-L383

**solution**:
Use the document name when previewing it

BUG 2:
---------
**steps to reproduce**:
1. Install Documents.
2. Open any document.
3. Rename it via the chatter.
4. Try renaming it again via the details panel.

**issue**:
After renaming a document twice through the details panel, the preview still displayed the old document name.

**cause**:
On the first rename, the [insert](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/691115d8a0b31322f64d35d82dc8c9ddbfcd39b0/documents/static/src/core/document_service.js#L96-L129)) method creates a new [store.Document](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/691115d8a0b31322f64d35d82dc8c9ddbfcd39b0/documents/static/src/views/hooks.js#L367-L393) record with the updated attachment name. However, The write method (used by chatter) skips reloading the record and linked attachment data on the second rename.

Unlike the Rename button, which uses web_save (and triggers a record reload via web_read), the chatter directly calls write without refreshing the attachment.

**Solution**:
Ensure the preview uses the document name from the document record, keeping it consistent after multiple renames via the details panel.


**Example:** Try to rename a "Invoice.pdf" document to "Invoice_rename.pdf"
<details>
    <summary>Click here to see the results:</summary>
    Before:
    <img src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/563b7fb9-709c-4651-8492-032a7f353730"/>
    After:
   <img src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/6fc6bdfe-dd1e-4f3c-aaf7-821c44fd135d"/>

</details>

opw-5065433

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#100539
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#95111

_
## Short functional explanation of the error
When creating a time off allocation with a time off type expressed in hours, and having start/end dates for every attendance in the corresponding calendar, an error is raised.

## Reproduction Steps
1. Go to Employees and click on the Configuration tab > Working Schedules.
2. Click on a schedule and click on the button next to Work Entry Type to show the Starting date.
3. Set a starting date for each entry.
4. Go to Time Off. Click on the Configuration tab > Time Off Types.
5. Click on a time off and next to the Take Time Off in, select Hours.
6. Click on the Management tab > Allocations. Click on New.
7. Select an employee that has the schedule you updated earlier.

## Expected behavior
The allocation is created.

## Unexpected Behavior
A traceback occurs:
``` ZeroDivisionError: float division by zero ```

## Origin of the issue
When setting a start or/and an end date to an attendance, this
attendance won't be taken into account for global attendances anymore.
This leads to an erroneous computation of hours_per_day, leading to
a few issues; one of them is related to time off allocation:
When setting a time off with a time off type expressed in hours,
if every single attendance in the calendar has a start/end date, there
will be no global attendance hours left, leading to a division by 0:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/8097b674a23858ed7692a0b30ca74419b8f890f7/addons/hr_holidays/models/hr_leave_allocation.py#L262


After discussion, we decided that this fix would only fix a symptom, and not the problem itself.
_
opw-5340056

---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#237782

**Description**

When a company's working schedule has flexible hours enabled, the timesheet grid was incorrectly displaying random weekdays as non-working days (greyed out cells). The affected days varied by month because the unavailability calculation was time-dependent.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Enable flexible hours on company's working schedule
2. Go to Timesheets > All timesheets
3. Switch to Grid view and filter by month
4. Observe that random weekdays (e.g., Wed/Thu or Mon/Tue) are greyed out

**Fix**

The grid_unavailability method now checks if the company calendar has flexible_hours enabled. When true, it returns an empty list of unavailable days, treating all days as potential working days.

This fix adds the flexible_hours check in two locations within the grid_unavailability method to cover all code paths:
1. get_company_unavailable_dates() helper function - prevents unnecessary calculation when called as fallback
2. company_unavailable_days assignment from calendar_work_intervals - handles the direct path when company calendar is found

This follows the same pattern as the gantt view fix #100385

opw-5215646

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#100881

Currently, an error is produced when configuring the **Accounting Period** on the "**Tax Returns**" journal.

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Install `accountant` module without demo data using `-i` command.
2. Accounting > Dashboard > "**Tax Returns**" Journal, click on “Tax Returns” button.
3. Set an _Opening Date_ in the wizard and try to apply the **Accounting Periods**.

**Error:**
`ValueError - Expected singleton: onboarding.progress()`

**Cause:**
**Until saas-18.2,** 
The onboarding record’s `current_progress_id` was created by method `_search_or_create_progress()` - ([1]) during module initialization. This method was triggered through `_initiate_account_onboardings()`, which was called in the `_accounting_post_init()` hook for all companies - ([2]).

**From saas-18.3,** 
`_accounting_post_init()` was modified to call `_initiate_account_onboardings()` only for companies having a `chart_template` - ([3]).

As a result, companies without a chart template never receive a default progress record, leaving `current_progress_id` unset. When rendering onboarding values, this leads to a singleton error.

**Fix:**
This commit ensures that a progress record exists by creating it when missing before rendering onboarding values.

[1]:  https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b2558e92e627a0efd975a402b77a6b53810c4c41/addons/onboarding/models/onboarding_onboarding.py#L107-L111
[2]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/2f2b53f1c6f31ae22351d22cf4bf59ef01a63691/accountant/__init__.py#L22-L25
[3]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/37dd63580967c1186618d7340a21539a6c98dbba/accountant/__init__.py#L22-L24

sentry-7064593163

**Steps to reproduce:**
* Install and activate the **Uruguayan Localization** for the company.
* Create a contact located in Uruguay.
* Create an invoice for this customer and set **Document Type = 111 (e-Invoice)**.
* From the invoice's gear icon, create a **Debit Note**.

**Observed behavior:**
* The debit note is automatically assigned **Document Type 111 (e-Invoice)**, even though it should use **113 (e-Invoice Debit Note)**.
* Attempting to change the document type manually only shows 113 as an option, confirming the debit note should not have been set to 111.

**Cause:**
* `_compute_l10n_latam_document_type()` applies a rule that assigns Document Type **111** to all Uruguay electronic invoices with RUT identification.
* This logic does **not** check whether the move is a **debit note** (`m.debit_origin_id`), and therefore incorrectly overrides the expected debit note document type.
* The override prevents the correct selection (internal_type == *debit_note*) from being applied.

**Fix:**
* Add a condition in the automatic e-Invoice assignment logic.
* Debit notes now bypass the e-Invoice assignment and fall through to the parent method, which correctly assigns **Document Type 113**.

opw-5154599

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#100938

step to reproduce:
- create a invoice and confirm it
- remove due date from it and save it 
- ensure the confirmed invoice do not payment term or due date
- open aged receivable report
- open this entry 
<img width="1599" height="238" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/010f97f4-0d50-4e5a-9366-ae67d17e2bb7" />


Observation:
- on clicking the entry, when redirected to list view, there are `0` records.

Issue:
- The query which is used to display data on report uses `COALESCE(account_move_line.date_maturity, account_move_line.date)`

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/ffc329e4ff2bd6512164ecd4206210fd5c9264b9/account_reports/models/account_aged_partner_balance.py#L222-L226

- while the method `_build_domain_from_period` uses only `date_maturity` in domain redirecting to list view
- This creates inconsistencies between two. 
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/ffc329e4ff2bd6512164ecd4206210fd5c9264b9/account_reports/models/account_aged_partner_balance.py#L383-L394

opw-5237298

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#99883

**Description**

When a company's working schedule has flexible hours enabled, the timesheet grid was incorrectly displaying random weekdays as non-working days (greyed out cells). The affected days varied by month because the unavailability calculation was time-dependent.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Enable flexible hours on company's working schedule
2. Go to Timesheets > All timesheets
3. Switch to Grid view and filter by month
4. Observe that random weekdays (e.g., Wed/Thu or Mon/Tue) are greyed out

**Fix**

The grid_unavailability method now checks if the company calendar has flexible_hours enabled. When true, it returns an empty list of unavailable days, treating all days as potential working days.

This fix adds the flexible_hours check in two locations within the grid_unavailability method to cover all code paths:
1. get_company_unavailable_dates() helper function - prevents unnecessary calculation when called as fallback
2. company_unavailable_days assignment from calendar_work_intervals - handles the direct path when company calendar is found

This follows the same pattern as the gantt view fix #100385

opw-5215646

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#100881

The test `test_shop_floor_my_wo_filter_with_pin_user` sometimes fails on these steps:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/422ac3d5b10c44233321010b9ecb8e37735b3ea3/mrp_workorder/static/tests/tours/tour_shopfloor.js#L177-L190 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/422ac3d5b10c44233321010b9ecb8e37735b3ea3/mrp_workorder/static/tests/tours/tour_shopfloor.js#L196-L206 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/422ac3d5b10c44233321010b9ecb8e37735b3ea3/mrp_workorder/static/tests/tours/tour_shopfloor.js#L212-L221 This happends since changing the user requires some time to display the related shopfloor records, but the steps check the number of visible records as soon as it has switched rather than when it is sure that the records are displayed.

#### Fix:

Since switching employees will first empty the recordset and later display the related records, we can split the steps in two. We first check that we switched users, then we check the existence of a record that is not present for the previous user, and only then perform the related checks.

#### runbot-226734

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#100908
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#100746

**Steps to reproduce:**
* Install and activate the **Uruguayan Localization** for the company.
* Create a contact located in Uruguay.
* Create an invoice for this customer and set **Document Type = 111 (e-Invoice)**.
* From the invoice's gear icon, create a **Debit Note**.

**Observed behavior:**
* The debit note is automatically assigned **Document Type 111 (e-Invoice)**, even though it should use **113 (e-Invoice Debit Note)**.
* Attempting to change the document type manually only shows 113 as an option, confirming the debit note should not have been set to 111.

**Cause:**
* `_compute_l10n_latam_document_type()` applies a rule that assigns Document Type **111** to all Uruguay electronic invoices with RUT identification.
* This logic does **not** check whether the move is a **debit note** (`m.debit_origin_id`), and therefore incorrectly overrides the expected debit note document type.
* The override prevents the correct selection (internal_type == *debit_note*) from being applied.

**Fix:**
* Add a condition in the automatic e-Invoice assignment logic.
* Debit notes now bypass the e-Invoice assignment and fall through to the parent method, which correctly assigns **Document Type 113**.

opw-5154599

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#100938

**Description**

When a company's working schedule has flexible hours enabled, the timesheet grid was incorrectly displaying random weekdays as non-working days (greyed out cells). The affected days varied by month because the unavailability calculation was time-dependent.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Enable flexible hours on company's working schedule
2. Go to Timesheets > All timesheets
3. Switch to Grid view and filter by month
4. Observe that random weekdays (e.g., Wed/Thu or Mon/Tue) are greyed out

**Fix**

The grid_unavailability method now checks if the company calendar has flexible_hours enabled. When true, it returns an empty list of unavailable days, treating all days as potential working days.

This fix adds the flexible_hours check in two locations within the grid_unavailability method to cover all code paths:
1. get_company_unavailable_dates() helper function - prevents unnecessary calculation when called as fallback
2. company_unavailable_days assignment from calendar_work_intervals - handles the direct path when company calendar is found

This follows the same pattern as the gantt view fix #100385

opw-5215646

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#100881

## Case 1:
When `pypdf2_2` is not installed, it falls back to using the pypdf package. (Ref1)
This triggers a warning during the test case when it tries to parse an invalid PDF.

This commit suppresses the warning to ensure the test runs without warnings.

Ref1: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/26a5384af0af8fc6e6b5a10bea277f937e2b3481/odoo/tools/pdf/__init__.py#L42-L46

## Case 2:
With **PyPDF2===1.26.0**, the line at [1] raises a `PyPDF2.utils.PdfReadError: EOF marker not found`. 
This exception is not handled by the same except block but is instead handled later in the flow at [2].
As a result, the test raises a **UserError**, causing the assertion to fail.

On the other hand, when `pypdf2_2` or `pypdf` is installed, the _PdfFileReader_ raises a **UnicodeDecodeError**, which is then handled as a **ValidationError**, allowing the test to pass as expected.

This commit adds handling for **PdfReadError** in method `get_valid_pdf_data()` to unify the behavior across all supported PyPDF versions.

1: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/f79601c62ca629dc01a5c1ad5520b0bb44a169d0/sign/utils/pdf_handling.py#L27
2: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/f79601c62ca629dc01a5c1ad5520b0bb44a169d0/sign/models/sign_document.py#L433-L437

Runbot-234021, 234022

When selling a bom kit that have some components that applies on specific variants only, the picking was not correctly created. It would only take one kit variant into account, even if you sold 2 kits with different variants.

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
* Create a product P
* For product P, create an attribute with type "No variant" and values V1 and V2
* Create a BoM Kit for product P, with 3 components C1 C2 and C3
  - C2 applies only for variant V1
  - C3 applies only for variant V2
* Create a POS order with 2 lines of product P:
  - 1 with variant V1
  - 1 with variant V2
* Validate the order and check the created picking
> Observation: Only C1 and C2 are in the picking, C3 is missing

Why the fix:
------------
When creating the picking, the code was grouping the order lines by product only, and not by product variant. Therefore, the 2 lines would be grouped together, and only one of the variant-specific components would be taken into account.

opw-5051289

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#237844
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#235528

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install accountant and l10n_be_reports
- Switch to a Belgian company (e.g. BE Company CoA)

- Create an Intra-Community invoice:
  * Customer: [EU customer]
  * Invoice Date: [last month]
  * Fiscal Position: [Intra-Community]
  * Invoice Lines: [a product with "0% EU M" tax]
- Confirm the invoice

- Go to "Accounting / Accounting / Closing / Tax Returns"
- Open the period containing the created invoice
- Mark all lines as "Reviewed"
- Validate the VAT Return

**Issue:**
In the generated XML, there is a line for grid number "46L", which should not appear.
Therefore, the XML is rejected by the government.
Same issue with grid number "46T".
These 2 grids are sub-section of grid number "46" and should not appear in the XML.

Cause:
Previously, they were filtered out, but since this commit https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/17a6117ed88c29b5bc4db0c872bcdbc109a7d98b, the formula has changed from "46L" to "-46L" but the excluding filter has not been updated.

opw-5344566

[FIX] hr_payroll: write full name on payslip generated from payrun
_
## Short functional explanation of the error
When generating a payslip from a payrun for an employee, the name
of the PDF payslip is simply "new payslip" instead of 
"Salary Slip - <name of employee> - <time period of the slip>"

## Reproduction Steps
1. Go to Payroll and click on the Payslips tab > payslips.
2. Click on Pay Run. Select Regular Pay and click Continue.
3. Select an employee for which you'd like to generate the payslip.
4. Click on the employee row in the list view.
5. Click Compute sheet > Print.

## Expected behavior
A PDF with name "Salary Slip - <employee name> - <time period>" is
generated.

## Unexpected Behavior
A PDF with name "new Payslip" is generated.

## Origin of the issue
When printing the slip with this flow, we don't call the method
```_compute_name()``` used to compute the name of the current slip.
Therefore, it stays at 'New Slip', which is the default name.
Henceforth, we have to call this method manually when printing the
slip.
_
opw-5216796

---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#101056

Currently an error is generated when the user tries to create or write fields
 with wrong domain.

Steps to produce an error
- Install sale_management and create a new field with the below detail
    - Model: `Sales order`
    - Field Type: `one2many`
    - Related Model: `sale.order`
    - Relation Field `partner_id`
    - Domain: `[('sale_order_id', 'in', sale_order_ids)]`
- Click on save

This error occurs because we have a constraint in the domain, and it is triggered
 when the user modifies the domain at code line [1]. Inside this constraint, we use
 `safe_eval` to evaluate the domain. During this evaluation, an error is raised because
 the user entered an incorrect domain.

This commit fixes the above issue by wrapping `safe_eval` inside a `try–except` 
block and raising a `ValidationError` with an appropriate message when an error occurs during domain evaluation.

[1]- https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/e4e2dca73213c33c487033dd404a7ca335960a66/odoo/addons/base/models/ir_model.py#L651-L654

sentry-6964956583

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#237937
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#236891

Scenario:

- edit a website page (eg: /test that you create)
- go to Site > Properties
- have a slow connection and write in field "Page URL" for some seconds

Result: the input jitter, if going too fast the text can be removed to
get previous version.

Secondary issue: if we cancel our change and set back the original URL,
the "Redirect Old Url" part is not hidden.

Reason: we trigger onchange at each input event, so if we write 20
letters we will possibly still have 20 onchange that are ongoing and
will set back older version of the field value.

The secondary issue is because we are using a field using useInputField
and FieldUrl but we are hacking it to remove the "/" prefix inside the
input. So when the invisible modifier is checked, we check eg.
"old_url=/test" against "url=test" that are always different.

With this fix:

Since the triggered onchange were only to update quicker the condition
`invisible="old_url == url"`, we trigger them only if that condition
will change, and debounce it to prevent the now single onchange of
happening in the middle of text input.

And for the secondary issue, we add and remove the / when triggering the
onchange.

opw-4517181

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#238544
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#200016

Steps to reproduce:

case 1:

1. Select all text in the footer.
2. Apply an animation (e.g. slide).
3. Re-select the same text (e.g. by triple-clicking or drag-selecting).
4. Observe that the animation option resets unexpectedly.

Case 2:
1. Select all text in a paragraph.
2. Apply a text highlight.
3. Re-select the same text (e.g. by triple-clicking or drag-selecting).
4. Apply an animation (e.g. on scroll).
5. Re-select the same text again.
6. Observe that the animation option resets unexpectedly.

Cause:
The previous comparison between `selection.textContent()` and
`ancestor.innerText` did not account for differences in whitespace and
formatting, leading to false mismatches even when the selected and
ancestor text appeared identical.

Fix:
Normalized both the selection and ancestor text by collapsing multiple
whitespace characters and trimming leading/trailing spaces before
comparison. This ensures that visually identical text is treated as
equal, maintaining the animation option state when re-selecting the
same text.

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#227780

_
## Short functional explanation of the error
When creating a time off allocation with a time off type expressed in hours, and having start/end dates for every attendance in the corresponding calendar, an error is raised.

## Reproduction Steps
1. Go to Employees and click on the Configuration tab > Working Schedules.
2. Click on a schedule and click on the button next to Work Entry Type to show the Starting date.
3. Set a starting date for each entry.
4. Go to Time Off. Click on the Configuration tab > Time Off Types.
5. Click on a time off and next to the Take Time Off in, select Hours.
6. Click on the Management tab > Allocations. Click on New.
7. Select an employee that has the schedule you updated earlier.

## Expected behavior
The allocation is created.

## Unexpected Behavior
A traceback occurs:
``` ZeroDivisionError: float division by zero ```

## Origin of the issue
When setting a start or/and an end date to an attendance, this
attendance won't be taken into account for global attendances anymore.
This leads to an erroneous computation of hours_per_day, leading to
a few issues; one of them is related to time off allocation:
When setting a time off with a time off type expressed in hours,
if every single attendance in the calendar has a start/end date, there
will be no global attendance hours left, leading to a division by 0:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/8097b674a23858ed7692a0b30ca74419b8f890f7/addons/hr_holidays/models/hr_leave_allocation.py#L262


After discussion, we decided that this fix would only fix a symptom, and not the problem itself.
_
opw-5340056

---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#237782

**Steps to reproduce:**
* Install and activate the **Uruguayan Localization** for the company.
* Create a contact located in Uruguay.
* Create an invoice for this customer and set **Document Type = 111 (e-Invoice)**.
* From the invoice's gear icon, create a **Debit Note**.

**Observed behavior:**
* The debit note is automatically assigned **Document Type 111 (e-Invoice)**, even though it should use **113 (e-Invoice Debit Note)**.
* Attempting to change the document type manually only shows 113 as an option, confirming the debit note should not have been set to 111.

**Cause:**
* `_compute_l10n_latam_document_type()` applies a rule that assigns Document Type **111** to all Uruguay electronic invoices with RUT identification.
* This logic does **not** check whether the move is a **debit note** (`m.debit_origin_id`), and therefore incorrectly overrides the expected debit note document type.
* The override prevents the correct selection (internal_type == *debit_note*) from being applied.

**Fix:**
* Add a condition in the automatic e-Invoice assignment logic.
* Debit notes now bypass the e-Invoice assignment and fall through to the parent method, which correctly assigns **Document Type 113**.

opw-5154599

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#100938

Currently, an error occurs when creating a time off request for an employee.

Steps to Reproduce:

 - Install the `hr_holiday` module.
 - Go to `Management > Time Off`.
 - Create a `new time off` and `remove the start date`.
 - Now `change the employee`.

`AttributeError: 'bool' object has no attribute 'date'`

This error occurs when creating a time off request for an employee. If the start date is removed and then the employee is changed, the compute method [1] runs to determine whether the time off can be approved and to update the states [2]. During this process, the system checks whether the time off date is in the past, and since the start date is missing, it results in the error [3].

This commit ensures that the system only checks whether the time off is in the past when a start date is provided.

[1]- https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/aa53689d3c593a8a41479c51edc2b01e3c284f96/addons/hr_holidays/models/hr_leave.py#L594-L597

[2]- https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/aa53689d3c593a8a41479c51edc2b01e3c284f96/addons/hr_holidays/models/hr_leave.py#L1279

[3]- https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/aa53689d3c593a8a41479c51edc2b01e3c284f96/addons/hr_holidays/models/hr_leave.py#L1237

No Task ID

---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#238281

step to reproduce:
- create a invoice and confirm it
- remove due date from it and save it 
- ensure the confirmed invoice do not payment term or due date
- open aged receivable report
- open this entry 
<img width="1599" height="238" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/010f97f4-0d50-4e5a-9366-ae67d17e2bb7" />


Observation:
- on clicking the entry, when redirected to list view, there are `0` records.

Issue:
- The query which is used to display data on report uses `COALESCE(account_move_line.date_maturity, account_move_line.date)`

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/ffc329e4ff2bd6512164ecd4206210fd5c9264b9/account_reports/models/account_aged_partner_balance.py#L222-L226

- while the method `_build_domain_from_period` uses only `date_maturity` in domain redirecting to list view
- This creates inconsistencies between two. 
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/ffc329e4ff2bd6512164ecd4206210fd5c9264b9/account_reports/models/account_aged_partner_balance.py#L383-L394

opw-5237298

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#99883

[*]=html_builder

Steps to reproduce:
1. Go to website and click edit.
2. Switch to the _Theme_ tab and click on _Color Presets_.
3. Click on first color preset, then open the background color picker.
4. Switch to gradient tab, select any gradient, and adjust the opacity.
5. Now, click on second color preset, open the background color picker.
6. Switch to the custom tab, select any color, and adjust its opacity.

Issue:
When a gradient is selected (first color preset), the color preset preview area correctly displays a checkered background to indicate transparency. However, when a plain custom color is selected (second color preset), the checkered transparency background is missing from the color preset preview area.

Fix:
Set the value of `--PreviewAlphaBg-background-size` variable as `32px`. Moreover, extended the `%o-preview-alpha-background` placeholder in the `color_picker_theme_tab.scss` file to ensure the checkered background is consistently applied for both gradient and custom color selections.

| Before | After |
|-----------------------------|---------------------------------|
| <img width="363" height="308" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/dbb64116-70d6-4475-9d41-90c0b591efcd" /> | <img width="363" height="308" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/ea8caa90-3518-4219-a980-a2a22f2f427d" /> |

task-5226064

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#234083

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
1. Install mrp_mps
2. Go to Inventory > Operations > Procurement > MPS
3. Click "Toggle search panel"(▼)
4. Click “Import Records”

Issue:
------
Nothing happens when clicking “Import Records”.

Cause:
------
After this 646bee6, initialization moved to `onWillStart()`, but it only runs
when the current action type is `ir.actions.act_window`. MPS triggers
the import from a [client action](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/142d86ad89435cd0751e9865ff62e8263a67e060/mrp_mps/views/mrp_mps_menu_views.xml#L4-L9), so the condition returns early and [get_import_templates](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f272eb19813be4254fd461ec21f1cc47e8834559/addons/base_import/static/src/import_model.js#L238) never loads.

Solution:
---------
Allow initialization for client actions as well, same as window actions.

Reference: MPS(Master Production Schedule)

opw-5248073



---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Install l10n_tw_edi_ecpay.
2. Switch to the TW company.
3. Go to Configuration → search for "ECPay".
4. Enable staging mode.
5. Enter all credentials.
6. Create a new invoice → select “Taiwan Semiconductor” as customer → set an email and leave the phone field empty.
7. Add a product → confirm → click “Send” → select only “Send to ECPay” → send.
 
> You can find ECPay testing credentials here : https://developers.ecpay.com.tw/?p=24174

**Issue:**
A traceback occurs while sending the e-invoice:
`AttributeError: 'res.partner' object has no attribute 'mobile'`
    
**Cause:**
In commit https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/6b820eb6fc6f782ba6a83d605d87b4a1dd2a87be the `mobile` field was removed from `res.partner`. The ECPay integration still attempted to read `partner.mobile`, which causes the traceback on versions where the field no longer exists.

Additionally, the code was still using the deprecated `self._cr` cursor reference, which was replaced by `self.env.cr` as part of the cleanup in: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/193636/commits/ad7606195a4ba44bf9854506bf2e305d3dd13dbb

**Fix:**
Remove the reference to the obsolete `mobile` field and rely solely on the `phone` field, which is the only supported contact number field in 19.0. 
Also replace deprecated `self._cr` with `self.env.cr`

**opw-5357429**

**Description**

When a company's working schedule has flexible hours enabled, the timesheet grid was incorrectly displaying random weekdays as non-working days (greyed out cells). The affected days varied by month because the unavailability calculation was time-dependent.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Enable flexible hours on company's working schedule
2. Go to Timesheets > All timesheets
3. Switch to Grid view and filter by month
4. Observe that random weekdays (e.g., Wed/Thu or Mon/Tue) are greyed out

**Fix**

The grid_unavailability method now checks if the company calendar has flexible_hours enabled. When true, it returns an empty list of unavailable days, treating all days as potential working days.

This fix adds the flexible_hours check in two locations within the grid_unavailability method to cover all code paths:
1. get_company_unavailable_dates() helper function - prevents unnecessary calculation when called as fallback
2. company_unavailable_days assignment from calendar_work_intervals - handles the direct path when company calendar is found

This follows the same pattern as the gantt view fix #100385

opw-5215646

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#100881

step to reproduce:
- create a invoice and confirm it
- remove due date from it and save it 
- ensure the confirmed invoice do not payment term or due date
- open aged receivable report
- open this entry 
<img width="1599" height="238" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/010f97f4-0d50-4e5a-9366-ae67d17e2bb7" />


Observation:
- on clicking the entry, when redirected to list view, there are `0` records.

Issue:
- The query which is used to display data on report uses `COALESCE(account_move_line.date_maturity, account_move_line.date)`

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/ffc329e4ff2bd6512164ecd4206210fd5c9264b9/account_reports/models/account_aged_partner_balance.py#L222-L226

- while the method `_build_domain_from_period` uses only `date_maturity` in domain redirecting to list view
- This creates inconsistencies between two. 
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/ffc329e4ff2bd6512164ecd4206210fd5c9264b9/account_reports/models/account_aged_partner_balance.py#L383-L394

opw-5237298

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#99883

### Issue:
In 18.0-18.2, for product with a Manufacturing BoM containing a Component, a WO and a Quality Point If a Reordering Rule is triggered, odoo try to add the newly ordered quantity to an existing MO But if the MO is "locked" because a quality check has been performed, a Error is raised:
```
Odoo Warning
You cannot update the quantity to do of an ongoing manufacturing order for which quality checks have been performed.
```

### Steps to reproduce:
- Create a product tracked by quantity
- Add a BoM (1 component tracked by Quantity, 1 Operation with 1 Quality Point)
- Create a Reordering Rule (Route: Manufacture, Trigger: Manual, Min/Max: 1)
- Click on Order
- Open the created MO and the Shop Floor (Remove the filters to see the WO)
- Complete the Quality Point
- Modify the Reordering Rule (Min/Max: 2)
- Click on Order - the error should be raised

### Cause:
The MO to update is retrieved here:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/45184da06cf7b92a48e3e4e90bf8b285bdd9ad6a/addons/mrp/models/stock_rule.py#L53-L57 Using a domain defined in this function:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/45184da06cf7b92a48e3e4e90bf8b285bdd9ad6a/addons/mrp/models/stock_rule.py#L130-L153

In 18.0-18.2, when validating a `quality check` from the Shop Floor while the WO is in `waiting` state, the MO remains in `confirmed` state This makes the domain match the current WO and MO, triggering `change_prod_qty` even though the MO is locked

In 18.3–18.4, a similar issue can occur with multiple WOs when the first blocks the second and a `quality check` is performed on the latter The `blocked` state behaves like `waiting`, but the issue is avoided when using the Shop Floor because this commit ensures that clicking a card starts the timer and changes the state to `progress`: 67c2127
However, it could still theoretically be triggered under specific conditions

In 19.0, the new stock.reference system (odoo/odoo#212679) ensures the MO is detected as different, so a new one is always created

opw-5012588
enterprise: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/101313

### Steps to reproduce:

- In the settings enable By-Products an Multi-step routes
- Put your warehouse in manufacturing in 3 steps
- Create two storable products:
    - Final Product (FP) with an empty bom
    - By Product (BP)
- Go to the barcode app > Operations > Manufacturing > New
- Scan FP > Register By-Products
- Scan BP
#### > The line is created with pre-prod as location and prod as destination

### Cause of the issue:

Since no existing line refers to the by product, a new line is created and its `location_id` and `location_dest_id` are provided by the `_getNewLineDefaultValues`:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/17fd46b04d87585b7ed46c00d9559414daa17384/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L562-L566 However, at this point nothing had set the `params.newByProduct` in the `processBarcode`:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/17fd46b04d87585b7ed46c00d9559414daa17384/stock_barcode_mrp/static/src/models/barcode_mrp_model.js#L375-L383 In fact, the only thing indicating that we are creating a by prodcut line at this point is the `displayByProduct`.

### Note:

The issue is no longer reproducible in 18.0+ as this change has already been applied in 2d5dbb93e6b33c2be786f9b2361c993f715d1a7f

opw-5350222

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#101087

When posting an invoice, the system creates:
- Journal Entry: Dr 131 (Receivable) / Cr 511

Then the system creates a deferral entry:
- Deferral entry: Dr 511 / Cr 3387 (Payable)

Falsifying the Balance sheet report, in the accounts receivable and accounts payable indicators

The issue was that account 3387 was configured as `Payable`, which caused the system to generate both Receivable (131) and Payable (3387) for the same partner. This is incorrect because account 3387 represents "Unearned Revenue", which is a  current liability, not a payable account.

By changing the account type from `Payable` to `Current Liabilities`,
the deferral entry now correctly reflects that 3387 is a current liability account, preventing the incorrect reconciliation behavior where both receivable and payable entries were created for the same partner.

After this fix:
- Entry: Dr 131 (Receivable) / Cr 511
- Deferral: Dr 511 / Cr 3387 (Current Liabilities)

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

Current behavior before PR:

Desired behavior after PR is merged:




---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr