Monday, December 22, 2025
5 changes · saas-18.2
New functionality added to Odoo
This update introduces support for Factura Especial (FESP) invoices in Guatemala, a legal requirement for purchases without supplier invoices. The system now automatically handles the necessary data and calculations, including withholding taxes and accounting entries, ensuring compliance with Guatemalan regulations.
Original PR description
### PURPOSE - In Guatemala, a Factura Especial (FESP) is a legal mechanism established in Art. 52 of the VAT Law. - Generate Factura Especial (FESP) when registering a purchase without a supplier…
### PURPOSE - In Guatemala, a Factura Especial (FESP) is a legal mechanism established in Art. 52 of the VAT Law. - Generate Factura Especial (FESP) when registering a purchase without a supplier invoice. - Include all required data: supplier as receiver, transaction details, and the retention complement (100% VAT + ISR withholding). - Ensure proper accounting: supplier payable = net after retentions, taxes withheld = recorded as liabilities to be paid to SAT. - Fulfill FEL technical requirements (DTE XML, mandatory phrase, retention complement, see example attached). ### SPECIFICATION - Added flow for FESP (Factura Especial) document type in vendor bills. - Automatically added Phrase Type 5, Scenario 1 (as required by SAT). - Enforced mandatory data by raising UserError if FESP is selected but no withholding taxes are set on the product lines. - Added complement generation for withheld taxes (IVA, ISR) with base, rate, and amounts. - Allow users to send a document to SAT in case of FESP. - Added required details in FEL XML for FESP. task-5026698 see - https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/229493 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#96007
Resolved issues and error corrections
This update resolves an error that occurred when sending customer statements. The fix ensures the system correctly handles scenarios where a custom email template isn't used, defaulting to the current user's email address to prevent the error and allow successful statement delivery.
Original PR description
Currently, an error occurs when a user sends a customer statement. **Steps to Reproduce ([Video](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1soOylzCVnNCNsWUBizeBQ9vfFlI5pzSP/view)):** - Install the…
Currently, an error occurs when a user sends a customer statement. **Steps to Reproduce ([Video](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1soOylzCVnNCNsWUBizeBQ9vfFlI5pzSP/view)):** - Install the `account_reports` module. - Go to `Invoicing` > `Customers` > `Customers`. - Switch to `List view`, select `a customer`, then click on `Actions` > `Open Customer Statements`. - Click `Send`, remove the `Email Template`, add a `subject`, and then click `Print & Send`. **Error:** `ValueError: Expected singleton: mail.template()` After [this commit], which checks whether the template has an email_from, when a user sends the customer statement and removes the email template, it still tries to access the template to fetch email_from for a particular customer [1]. If no email template is used, this results in an error [2] when going to extract the email_from. This commit ensures that email_from is taken from the email template if one is used; otherwise, it uses the current user's email address [3], which matches the default behavior. [this commit]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/22c46e4f63e7b2dc0eee16fc807656cd4de21fb7 [1]- https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/dc4d5633407ccc728d30de5ce2072a80c16b2766/account_reports/wizard/account_report_send.py#L246 [2]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0dabb221225fba96c0e55779afadd9f12b369777/addons/mail/models/mail_render_mixin.py#L691-L693 [3]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0dabb221225fba96c0e55779afadd9f12b369777/addons/mail/models/mail_thread.py#L2891-L2892 sentry-7106576491 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#102219
This update resolves issues preventing incorrect credit notes from being processed for Kenyan tax purposes. Specifically, the system now ensures credit notes match the original invoice's customer PIN and cannot be dated before the invoice date, aligning with KRA (Kenya Revenue Authority) regulations.
Original PR description
* Prevent credit note with customer PIN different than the submitted invoice. * Prevent credit note to be dated before the original invoice date. task-5160113 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#102450 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#100480
This update corrects a previous issue where newly created serial numbers within the barcode app were automatically assigned to the current company. This prevented proper use of serial numbers across different companies. Now, serial numbers can be created without a company association, allowing for greater flexibility in intercompany operations.
Original PR description
## Context In the barcode app (`stock_barcode`), users can update inventory counts by scanning a product's barcode or by manually entering the barcode. ## Issue When the barcode is entered manually,…
## Context In the barcode app (`stock_barcode`), users can update inventory counts by scanning a product's barcode or by manually entering the barcode. ## Issue When the barcode is entered manually, the lot/serial number is created with the *Company* field set to the current company. This causes issues when working with intercompany flows, because lots with a company assigned cannot be used by other companies. This behavior is also inconsistent with the other ways of updating a company's inventory. In fact, the following flows create serial/lot numbers with no company assigned: - Inventory / Products / Products / *Forecasted Report* or *On Hand* - Inventory / Operations / Adjustments / Physical Inventory - Barcode / Inventory Count / Add product (add the serial number from the *Inventory Count* screen, **not** by clicking on the cogwheel in the top-right corner) ## Cause The line assigning a `company_id` was added by https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/c0151bce3c60c69e7cadeb719a81c4a702b71c34. At the time, that behavior was consistent with the backend behavior, as the `company_id` of a lot/serial number would always be set to `self.env.company`. In fact, the feature allowing a lot/serial to be shared among multiple companies was introduced later, in saas-17.2 (https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/99b39b72c7e65e85af6f06dcb6b02867623f3f69). This last commit adds a compute method for the `stock.lot.company_id` field: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/6026866900fd0ac1bf6495ae249cd08f56c85342/addons/stock/models/stock_lot.py#L130-L136 Since then, lot/serial numbers shouldn't be created with a `company_id`, as this restrict other companies to use those numbers. Users can always add a company to a lot/serial number later if necessary. ## Solution The line assigning a `company_id` to the `stock.lot` can be removed, as it does not reflect the current behavior (saas-17.2+). Nowadays, a `company_id` should be set **only** if the user wants a lot/serial number to be used by a specific company; it should not be the default behavior. ## Steps to reproduce 1. Install *Barcode* (`stock_barcode`). 2. In Inventory / Configuration / Settings, enable *Lots & Serial Numbers*. 3. In Settings / Users & Companies / Companies, create a second company. Use either company for the following steps. 4. Create a product tracked *By Unique Serial Number*. 5. Open the Barcode app, then click *Inventory Count*. 6. Scan your product (or add it manually, but **do not** set the *Serial/Lot Number*). 7. Scan "SN001" (or add it manually through the cogwheel menu), then click *Apply*. 8. Go to Inventory / Products / Lots / Serial Numbers. 9. The serial number created from the Barcode app is assigned to the current company. opw-5264216 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#102130
This update resolves an issue where deleting a shopfloor instruction suggestion caused errors in the system. The fix ensures that adding a new suggestion after deleting one works smoothly, preventing a traceback related to quality point references. This improves the reliability of the shopfloor instruction workflow.
Original PR description
**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…
**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 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#101366