There are two issues:

1) When making a purchase matching, and adding a vendor bill to a PO, when searching for the corresponding purchase order, it will not find it if the purchase order is an user with a company
2) When making a bill matching, the vendors bill will not appear.

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
* Create a company A
* Create a partner A of type individual as a sub-partner to the company A
* Create a purchase order with partner A and confirm it
* Create a vendor bill corresponding to the purchase order

1)
* Click on the purchase matching smart button the vendor bill and try to add to PO
* Search for the purchase order
-> Issue, the purchase order does not appear.

2)
* Go on the purchase order
* Click on Bill matching smart button
-> Issue the vendor bills will not appear

Observation:
-----------
The issue is that purchase Orders store the partner exactly as selected (individual contact), while Vendor Bills are normalized internally to the parent company ("commercial_partner_id'). This creates a mismatch when making the search.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/9e9e992698946b75212040ca0ff812194200a8bf/addons/account/models/account_move_line.py#L480-L483

1) The domain of the search is
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/58b888992f80a58fecdb92e23fea0050f2178faf/addons/purchase/wizard/bill_to_po_wizard_views.xml#L10-L11
The domain on the search does not take into consideration the missmatch between Vendor Bill and PO.

2) When calling action_bill_matching, the domain is:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/73590e017e9f2861b0852952e14261e57eb67f70/addons/purchase/models/purchase_order.py#L609-L621
This is a similar issue as 1) and https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/c0e86ba6d31708fb16765ba0e0596adc2f29dcd8

Why the fix:
------------
Commercial_partner_id is always set, adding it in the search will allow to normalize the search on the parent_company if there is one.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/18.0/odoo/addons/base/models/res_partner.py#L450-L455
opw-5067995

```
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/addons/account/models/ir_module.py", line 100, in _register_hook
    self.env.registry._delayed_account_translator(self.env)
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/addons/account/models/ir_module.py", line 90, in load_account_translations
    env['account.chart.template']._load_translations(langs=langs)
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/addons/account/models/chart_template.py", line 1449, in _load_translations
    ._get_chart_template_data(chart_template)
  File "/home/odoo/src/enterprise/19.0/account_accountant/models/account_chart_template.py", line 31, in _get_chart_template_data
    data = super()._get_chart_template_data(chart_template)
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/addons/account/models/chart_template.py", line 803, in _get_chart_template_data
    data = func(self, template_code)
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/addons/account/models/chart_template.py", line 59, in wrapper
    return func(*args, **kwargs)
  File "/home/odoo/src/enterprise/19.0/l10n_be_reports/models/account_chart_template.py", line 52, in _get_be_account_reconcile_model
    prepayment_communication = self.env['qr.code.payment.wizard']._be_company_vat_communication(self.env.company).replace('+++', '')
  File "/home/odoo/src/enterprise/19.0/l10n_be_reports/models/qr_code_payment_wizard.py", line 14, in _be_company_vat_communication
    number = int(vat)
ValueError: invalid literal for int() with base 10: 'LU19038918'
```
```sql
kmod_3311837=> select id,name,chart_template,parent_id from res_company;
 id |        name         | chart_template | parent_id
----+---------------------+----------------+-----------
  3 | C.R.O.Qu.E.T. S.A.  | be_comp        |
  2 | KG5380              | be_comp        |
  1 | KNOWLEDGE GATE S.A. | lu             |
(3 rows)

kmod_3311837=> select id,model,module,res_id from ir_model_data where name = 'main_company';
 id |    model    | module | res_id
----+-------------+--------+--------
  2 | res.company | base   |      1
(1 row)
```
```
> /home/odoo/src/enterprise/19.0/l10n_be_reports/models/account_chart_template.py(52)_get_be_account_reconcile_model()
-> if template_code in ['be', 'be_comp', 'be_asso']:
(Pdb) template_code
'be_comp'
(Pdb) self.env.company
res.company(1,)
(Pdb) self.env.company.chart_template
'lu'
(Pdb)
```

- The traceback occurs because during the translation loading process, the system calls [_get_chart_template_data](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/38cffd1d1580693c56f0d897b8c8e60b938a8e85/addons/account/models/chart_template.py#L1465) for all available template codes. In the customer’s database, there are three companies: Company 2 and Company 3 use the BE_COMP localization, while Company 1 uses the LU localization.
- When _get_chart_template_data is executed for the BE_COMP chart template, it eventually calls [_get_be_account_reconcile_mode](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/d13dc2d7b54d7e43f3b27b19131d0a277d0498b8/l10n_be_reports/models/account_chart_template.py#L49) During this call, the function receives the correct template code (be_comp) as an argument. However, self.env.company returns Company 1, because Company 1 is set as the main_company.
- As a result, [_be_company_vat_communication](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/d13dc2d7b54d7e43f3b27b19131d0a277d0498b8/l10n_be_reports/models/qr_code_payment_wizard.py#L14) is called with Company 1, even though this company uses the LU localization. Since LU localization does not support the BE VAT communication logic, an error is raised from this method.
- There is no context of the company passed when calling _get_chart_template_data from _load_translations, so I have applied with_company, so _get_chart_template_data is called in the context of a specific company.
opw-5342498
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#239809

**BUG:** 
Traceback when **suggesting** deleting a BOM step from the shopfoor. 

**STEPS TO REPRODUCE:** 
- Open a shopfloor MO (with PLM installed)
-- Add a suggestion step (MO > cog> Update instructions > Improvement Suggestion > Add a step). 
-- Add a second suggestion step after the first one.
-- Delete the second suggestion step  (MO > cog> Update instructions > Improvement Suggestion > Delete a step).
-- Add a third suggest suggestion step after the second one we just suggested deleting.
-- > Traceback 

**ORIGIN:** 
First, when adding the suggestions:
 - 2 Quality Check (QC) are created on the **new_bom_id** in `add_quality_check_from_tablet.save()` 
 - 2 Quality Point (QP) are also created in  `add_check_in_chain()`, (only in mrp_workorder_plm override) 
- The 2nd new QC is linked to previous QC in `_insert_in_chain`

Secondly, when deleting the 2nd added suggestion (_on the same MO, as suggestions are linked to the new bom_id and wont appear on other MOs until ECO is validated_):
- The QP of the second QC is deleted (but the QC itself is not deleted) here:

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/f91b0c8c41f40a71cbea3cd4f5ccc6873af3c004/mrp_workorder_plm/wizard/propose_change.py#L72-L74

Finally, when adding a new suggestion after the one we just suggested deleting, in `_add_check_in_chain`, a traceback happens by trying to access the QP point we deleted in the resequencing part of  `_add_check_in_chain` here:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/eb716c18944ec50c9c8c74a2888ed5f3032a7b08/mrp_workorder_plm/models/mrp_workorder.py#L62-L63

**FIX:**
We accept that not all QCs must have QPs  `[0]` -> `[:1]` (see note on another approach idea) changing

```diff
- point = check.point_id if check.point_id.operation_id == operation else points.filtered(lambda p: p._get_sync_values() == check.point_id._get_sync_values())[0] 
+ point = check.point_id if check.point_id.operation_id == operation else points.filtered(lambda p: p._get_sync_values() == check.point_id._get_sync_values())[:1] 
```

**NOTES:**
-1 Another fix could have been to delete the QC at the same time as the QP but I did not find any `remove_from_chain` function to safely remove the QC from the chain of QC. Along those lines we could rethink the sequencing / resequencing of QC and QP as the logic seems to differ between both. 
-2 Added some comments to remove the field and the line setting the `is_deleted` field in master as it was not used anywhere in the code (the color highlighting in the ECO is done with `<list decoration-danger="change_type=='remove'" ...>`)


ticket #5180122