##  Steps to reproduce:

- Install 'website_crm_partner_assign' module.
- Create a partner X with a partner level.
- Save and go to "Opportunities".
- Create an new opportunity.
- Edit it and set the partner X as the assigned partner
- Grant the partner x portal access and change his password.
- Logout then login with the partner X credentials.
- Go to "My account" page and click on "Opportunities"
- Select the opportunity Y and edit the revenue or another field.
- Traceback on save. (Or no reaction, popup traceback from notification)

### Issue:
Since the commit ed94e84, we've removed the write access for portal partner users to the leads to avoid unexpected behaviors. However, this is provoking `update_lead_portal` to not be able to update the lead anymore, since we will not have direct access to modify the lead.

### Solution:
To fix this, we will follow same approach as in `update_contact_details_from_portal` and use `sudo()` to update the lead from the portal. We are already checking the portal access at the beginning of the method as `self._assert_portal_write_access()`, so we are sure that only authorized users will be able to update the lead.

opw-2764563


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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#237599

revert the commit
as when we fetch archived warehouse's pos type
it will raise error for other source or destination loction for newly created stock operation type like

even functinally also there is no need to fetch
archived warehouse's operation type.
```
quality Control
cross Dock,
Storage type
```
we got this error during upgrade :
```
File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-17.4/odoo/sql_db.py", line 347, in execute
    res = self._obj.execute(query, params)
psycopg2.errors.NotNullViolation: null value in column "default_location_src_id" of relation "stock_picking_type" violates not-null constraint
DETAIL:  Failing row contains (33, 0, 28, 56, null, null, null, 4, null, null, 1, 1, 1, QC, internal, at_confirm, FBAQC, ask, {"en_US": "Quality Control"}, null, f, f, t, null, f, null, 2024-10-16 05:14:53.18448, 2024-10-16 05:14:53.18448, optional, optional, no, optional, null, null, t, null, null, 2x7xprice, 4x12_lots, pdf, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, t, null).
```

due to this two fix:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/151719/commits
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/175838/files

so we need to avoid to fetch archived warehouse's picking type.

ref:
odoo/upgrade#6631

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#191652
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#185244

Commit 8f3e242e197b2f26982749 added an Etag to reduce the load on the network when loading a spreadsheet.

Now, this commit ensures the Etag is computed as fast as possible to also reduce the load on the server.

The Etag is based on the latest revision (field `current_revision_uuid`). When computing `current_revision_uuid`, we look at the lastest revisions. However, the current code only look at *active* revisions, and fallback on the snapshot.
The snapshot is a json file (potentially large) that needs be parsed. This is not fast.

To make it worse: spreadsheets are snapshotted as often as it can be, which means we almost always fall in the slow path when computing the Etag.

With this commit, we consider all revisions (active or not). We also load in memory only the latest instead of fetching multiple revisions for each spreadsheet (the work is done by postgres through `_read_group`)

On a spreadsheet with a snapshot of 9.8MB, server time
`"GET /spreadsheet/data/documents.document/17 HTTP/1.1" 304`

before: ~310ms
after:    ~5ms


Task-5431940

When the company's currency is not UYU we will get an error when doing the convention of the rate return by (UY) BCU (Banco Central Uruguay). All the rates should be used the same date in order to properly do the conversions.

### Steps
1. Create a new Company with country Uruguay
2. Change current logged company to new Company
3. Change the currency to USD
4. Go to Settings, option Automatic Currency rate and configure provider yo [UY] Uruguayan Central Bank
5. Click manual synchronization
6. Check rates  

### Current behavior before PR

All currencies except UYU currency has created taxes with date today.
Only one error in UYU currency that is created with yesterday rate
![image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/adfdf9a1-f0cf-4825-bfe4-47ff5c8da2c4)

### Desired behavior after PR is merged:

All the currencies are created with the same date, the correct day that is today rate.

References: LATAM 1341 / ADHOC Task 51716

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#85065

*: calendar, html_editor

Fixes an issue where the calendar event popover was positioned incorrectly for long events displayed in the day scale.

The fix updates the general positioning logic to test a wider range of placement possibilities, including center positioning. This applies to any positioned element that can be flipped but is not shrinkable.
Consequently, the `shrink` behavior is moved from the popover default to an optional parameter (currently enabled only for dropdowns), ensuring that calendar popovers maintain their size while finding a valid position.

Additionally, this commit:

- Restores the default calendar popover position back to 'right', as the previous change (https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/236503) did not properly address the root issue.
- Removes an unnecessary useEffect hook from the Many2ManyAttendeeExpandable component.
- Removes the concept of variant flipping because variant shifting was making it pointless.
- Adjusts rules that hide html_editor overlays when they overflow: this should now only apply to non flippable overlays and when the selection is out of the view port.

task-5401647

## 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

Dropping a custom "Form" snippet onto the checkout page would prevent the user from completing their order.

Steps to reproduce:
===================
1. On a website with eCommerce, add a product to the cart.
2. Proceed to the checkout page.
3. Enter Edit mode and drag a "Form" snippet onto the page.
4. Save and exit Edit mode.
5. Click the main "Process Checkout" button. -> The checkout process is blocked, and the custom form  show validation errors.

Cause:
======
A Extra info patch is intended for the "Extra Info" checkout form only, but It was applied to all `s_website_form` instances on the checkout page.

This caused any dropped form snippet to listen for a click on the main checkout button. When a user tried to proceed, the custom form would incorrectly intercept the event and trigger its own validation. If the form had required fields, this validation would fail and block the entire checkout process.

Solution:
=========
The patch has been refined to be more specific. It now only targets forms that have the `data-force_action="shop.sale.order"` attribute.

note: issue introduced in this commit: [1]

[1]:https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/a6489b9a2f84efa270b3b1951b8c542355de291b

opw-5391286

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#240244

##  Steps to reproduce:

- Install 'website_crm_partner_assign' module.
- Create a partner X with a partner level.
- Save and go to "Opportunities".
- Create an new opportunity.
- Edit it and set the partner X as the assigned partner
- Grant the partner x portal access and change his password.
- Logout then login with the partner X credentials.
- Go to "My account" page and click on "Opportunities"
- Select the opportunity Y and edit the revenue or another field.
- Traceback on save. (Or no reaction, popup traceback from notification)

### Issue:
Since the commit ed94e84, we've removed the write access for portal partner users to the leads to avoid unexpected behaviors. However, this is provoking `update_lead_portal` to not be able to update the lead anymore, since we will not have direct access to modify the lead.

### Solution:
To fix this, we will follow same approach as in `update_contact_details_from_portal` and use `sudo()` to update the lead from the portal. We are already checking the portal access at the beginning of the method as `self._assert_portal_write_access()`, so we are sure that only authorized users will be able to update the lead.

opw-2764563


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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#237599

## 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

Currently, the behavior of the "Maximum closing difference" feature with employees depends on the user connected in the backend and not the employee using the pos.

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
* Set max closing difference as 0
* Have 1 admin user and 1 pos user
* Have 2 employees
* Set admin user and employee 1 as advanced employees of the pos
* Set pos user and employee 2 as basic employees

Steps with admin:
* Make sure you are logged as the admin in the database
* Open pos (could be a session opened by other user)
* Log in with Admin user
* Try to close the pos with a difference of 10 -> You can, ok
* Log in with employee 1 (advanced)
* Try to close the pos with a difference of 10 -> You ca but shouldn't

Steps with pos user
* Now log in the database as pos user
* Open pos (could be a session opened by other user
* Log in with employee 1 (advanced)
* Try to close the pos with a difference of 10 -> You cannot, ok
* Log in with Admin user
* Try to close the pos with a difference of 10 -> you cannot but should

Why the fix:
------------
Employees that have no linked user should not ba able to override the max difference.

Employees who have a connected user should only be able to override the max difference if their user is admin of the pos.

opw-5184041

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#239770
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#235356

**Steps to reproduce:**
- enable "packages" and "batch transfers" settings
- open wharehouse management/operation type
- select internal transfer
- check "automatic batch" and group by "contact"
- create two storable product with an on hand quantity of 10
- create a an internal transfer for the first product for a qty of 10
- mark it as to do
- do the same for the second product and make sure that it's the same 
contact
- open barcode and select batches
- select the last batch created
- scan WH-STOCK
- enter and confirm a quantity of 4 for each line
- click on put in pack
(at this step we can already see that the two new lines created are 
associated wit the second picking, even though it should be one line 
per picking)
- click on the +6 on each line and click on put in pack
- validate

**Current behavior:**
- a back order has been created for the first picking
- the first internal transfer has only delivered 4 units of the first 
product
- the second internal transfer has delivered 10 of the second product 
and 5 of the first product

**Expected behavior:**
both pickings should have delivered 10 of their product

**Cause of the issue:**
The lines created when clicking on "put in pack" for the first time
are both associated with the second picking because the line split:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/898e3e47cfe3b86230da2b146960983d7ad144d0/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_picking_model.js#L514
and the picking_id of the new line is set to the values provided by the
`_getNewLineDefaultValues` as the picking_id of the last selected `line`:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/24b4e49dbe16cb8bd40170abfc089dd64c3f34dd/stock_barcode_picking_batch/static/src/models/barcode_picking_batch_model.js#L280-L281
rather than from the values of the initial line it is split from.

opw-4952964

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#102508
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#91378

**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

##  Steps to reproduce:

- Install 'website_crm_partner_assign' module.
- Create a partner X with a partner level.
- Save and go to "Opportunities".
- Create an new opportunity.
- Edit it and set the partner X as the assigned partner
- Grant the partner x portal access and change his password.
- Logout then login with the partner X credentials.
- Go to "My account" page and click on "Opportunities"
- Select the opportunity Y and edit the revenue or another field.
- Traceback on save. (Or no reaction, popup traceback from notification)

### Issue:
Since the commit ed94e84, we've removed the write access for portal partner users to the leads to avoid unexpected behaviors. However, this is provoking `update_lead_portal` to not be able to update the lead anymore, since we will not have direct access to modify the lead.

### Solution:
To fix this, we will follow same approach as in `update_contact_details_from_portal` and use `sudo()` to update the lead from the portal. We are already checking the portal access at the beginning of the method as `self._assert_portal_write_access()`, so we are sure that only authorized users will be able to update the lead.

opw-2764563


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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#237599

## 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

Steps to reproduce:
- Open the VoIP softphone on a mobile device
- Enter a number
- Place the cursor in the middle of the number
- Tap on the *odoo* backspace button
=> The character before the cursor is removed but then the cursor jumps
   to the end of the input.

Note: this also happens when trying to add a number in the middle of
the typed number, using the softphone buttons, but this message focuses
the explanation on the backspace button.

Commit [1] introduced the bug while revamping VoIP and its keypad.
Before that commit, there was a simple `t-on-click` defined on that
backspace button. After the update, that `t-on-click` is still there but
alongside a weird `t-on-touchend.prevent="(ev) => ev.target.click()"`,
which is actually there to prevent zoom-in behavior on double-tap,
although, retesting it does not seem necessary (at least on Android).
In any case, this is the original cause of the bug.
Since [2], the keypad input is using the mail's `useSelection` hook,
which, among other things, manages what happens on click outside of the
input. Before [1], this happened when clicking on the backspace button:

1. The click is handled during its *capture* phase by the `useSelection`
   hook. It checks if clicked location should be considered, the answer
   is yes.

2. The next part of the handler is done in the next microtask (as the
   check is done asynchronously (?? that looks like a bad idea, but
   that's another issue)).

3. That "in the next microtask" part occurs before the event starts
   bubbling: the capture handler saves the cursor position as being at
   the end of the input (?? not sure why, but that's another issue).

4. The click is handled during its *bubbling* phase by the backspace
   button's `t-on-click`, which removes the character before the cursor,
   and sets the cursor position accordingly for the `useSelection` hook.
   The actual cursor position is untouched since [3] on mobile "because
   otherwise it would open the mobile keyboard", but there are other
   ways that would have prevented that I think... to confirm later for
   master via task-5366961 (this actually causes issues in HOOT tests
   but that's another issue).

5. The dialer/numpad component handles the input's focus/cursor. For
   that, it forces a focus and ask the `useSelection` hook to "restore
   the selection", which "restores" it to what step (4) asked.

After [1], this changed to:

1'. Same as step (1)

2'. Same as step (2)

3'. As the click was simulated instead of being the "natural" one
    triggered by the browser touchend handling, the `t-on-click` handler
    is called now, before the "in the next microtask" part of the
    capture handler is done. That means what step (4) did happens now.

4'. Now what step (3) did happens now.

5'. Same as step (5)... but since step (3) and (4) were basically
    swapped, the cursor is now restored as the way it was last saved:
    at the end of the input (again don't know why step the
    `useSelection` hook would want to save it like that though).

There are multiple solutions to fix this:
A. Remove the `t-on-touchend` handler, letting the browser do what it
   naturally does. Although, it might be needed to prevent the mentioned
   zoom behaviors on some phones?
B. Review why the `useSelection` hook wants to save the cursor at the
   end of the input on external click, the point is valid but I am not
   sure that should be this hook's job to enforce it.
C. Review why the `useSelection` hook wants to check if the click has to
   be considered asynchronously, there should be a better way.
D. Configure the `useSelection` hook to consider a click on the
   backspace button as to be ignored, as handled manually by its own
   handlers anyway.

Option (A) should probably be done, by confirming zoom behaviors can be
prevented another way, but it cannot be done in stable anyway. The (B)
and (C) options should be investigated but would also not be stable to
change; also that would modify an exposed hook's behavior so more risky.
Option (D) can probably be done either way and is targeted on fixing the
bug described only, so this is the solution this commit went for.
In master, option (A) will be investigated in the forward-ported version
of this fix.

However... the bug was actually solved 3 months after [1], at [4] thanks
to secret option (E): not removing the `t-on-touchend` but changing it
entirely to call the same handler as the `t-on-click` one. A bit more
stable than option (A) but still not stable.
However... that solution (E) was broken 1 month later, again, by commit
[5] which destroyed step (5) while fixing an unrelated bug. Without that
step, the input cursor is not repositioned after OWL changes the value,
and by default OWL places it back at the end.

The solution is to restore step (5): the problem was that we were
checking if the user was not typing in another input before re-focusing
the keypad input... but the code considered the keypad input itself as
"another input". This commit still adds solution (D) on top of fixing
that, for good measures.

Note that in 19.0+, there is at least another cursor-related bugs,
related to commit [6]. It will be fixed in the forward-port of this one
as they need each other's fix to both work. Really there should be
better ways to handle that cursor position in OWL... might be done in a
future refactoring.

This commit adds a test to hopefully keep the bug fixed, as inspired by
commit [7].

[1]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/52b3065993c41c6b7c65dda586a66fdd865b3afd
[2]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/2e8f18801156a8069e26fb3d61d4f8d84893e891
[3]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/adc5448adf863b99b9b2be29985e560f5c12dbd4
[4]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/668467678312632b5b9ecf234280690151bf3078
[5]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/db82135fd73d5077fc26be7206105192a845c2bc
[6]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/a06c02e8e163ed052c1c4d25a56bea9b6409abde
[7]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/613ef7332b0d21e947871e9d33b68d069f1412c2

Related to task-5366961

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

## 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

**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

## 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

How to Reproduce : 
1. Remove 'Create' access on the 'Knowledge Article' model for Portal and 
   Internal users.
2. Now log in as a Portal.
3. Try to create a new private article.
4. Log in as an Internal user.
5. Try to create a new private article.

Both Internal and Portal users can still create private articles even after
'Create access' is removed.

Article creation logic in `knowledge.article` was bypassing the usual access
rights because of `sudo` (mainly to add the creator as a member, since creation
rights on the member model are not granted). This allowed users to create
private articles even without create access.

This commit introduces:
1. Model-level access check in `create`. Sudo the creation of articles only when
   the user has create rights.

2. UI imp to hide the '+' button in the sidebar and the `New` button in
   the topbar when the user doesn't have create access.

3. New test cases to verify that model-level access rights are respected when creating an article.

task-4916280

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#101804
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#93034

**Issue:**
Payslips show blank worked days for employees with contracts without a `resource_calendar_id` (fully flexible, despite having valid work entries

**Cause:**
`_get_worked_day_lines()`  skips worked day computation if the contract has no calendar

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/1a10e0444fdb71a072262a1f14f0bfc766d109c6/hr_payroll/models/hr_payslip.py#L665-L674

**Steps to Reproduce:**
- Assign an employee a fully flexible contract with attendance as work entry source.
- Create work entries based on the attendance records of the employee record
- Go to employees > contracts > new Payslip Worked Days section is empty, even though attendance shifts are showing up on top.

**Fix:**
removing the calendar requirement in the main method and adding a fallback calendar in the called utility method

**Note:** same issue happens if work entry source of the contract is Planning

opw-4931972

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#98194
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#93935

**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

## 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

##  Steps to reproduce:

- Install 'website_crm_partner_assign' module.
- Create a partner X with a partner level.
- Save and go to "Opportunities".
- Create an new opportunity.
- Edit it and set the partner X as the assigned partner
- Grant the partner x portal access and change his password.
- Logout then login with the partner X credentials.
- Go to "My account" page and click on "Opportunities"
- Select the opportunity Y and edit the revenue or another field.
- Traceback on save. (Or no reaction, popup traceback from notification)

### Issue:
Since the commit ed94e84, we've removed the write access for portal partner users to the leads to avoid unexpected behaviors. However, this is provoking `update_lead_portal` to not be able to update the lead anymore, since we will not have direct access to modify the lead.

### Solution:
To fix this, we will follow same approach as in `update_contact_details_from_portal` and use `sudo()` to update the lead from the portal. We are already checking the portal access at the beginning of the method as `self._assert_portal_write_access()`, so we are sure that only authorized users will be able to update the lead.

opw-2764563


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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#237599

Versions
--------
- 18.0

`l10n_ar_website_sale` was removed in later versions via 5a93da8e9220

Steps
-----
1. Create a partner with an address;
2. set up a company with Argentinian localization;
3. assign website to Argentinian company;
4. as partner, go to website & add something to your cart;
5. go to checkout.

Issue
-----
Cannot get past the address form.

Cause
-----
The `l10n_latam_identification_type_id` and `l10n_ar_afip_responsibility_type_id` fields are required, but not shown. Because they're not editable, the `website_sale` controller doesn't consider them "missing", making the `l10n_ar_website_sale` override not handle the missing fields.

Going to "My Account" to edit details also doesn't allow you to add them, as the form lacks the `can_edit_vat` value.

Solution
--------
Instead of relying on the `missing_fields` value from the base method call, have the `_validate_address_values` override explicitly check the presence of those fields in either the address values or the current partner record (adding them to address values if it's the latter).

If the values are missing, show an error message telling the client to add the missing info via "My Account".

In the portal controller, provide the `can_edit_vat` value to make the fields editable.

opw-5376149

A MemoryError can be thrown when running the scheduled action `_cron_recurring_create_invoice` on large databases. When there are lots of subscriptions, sale.orders and account.move.lines, the compute method overwrite `_get_invoiced` in the sale_subscription module can consume a lot of memory. The issue is mostly coming from the search on account.move.line. In case a lot of account.move.lines have a subscription_id, the search to get `all_subscription_ids` is going to return a lot of records. Then, accessing any field on this recordset will prefetch all the prefetchable fields, leading to a MemoryError.

This commit fixes that by manually fetching the fields we need on account_move_line. Since `subscription_move_lines` is not used anywhere else and `move_by_origin` only contains ids, the number of queries stays the same while the memory consumption plummets.

#### Benchmark

In a database with 236 000 account.move.line with a non-null subscription_id, running the schedule action with 5 subscriptions to invoice consumes at least 1.7GB (MemoryError raised). After this commit it consumes 191MB.

<img width="1918" height="943" alt="sale_subscription_before" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/e868921f-e691-47c3-8474-edb9a1d22d0b" />

<img width="1920" height="949" alt="sale_subscription_after" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/78e9fc31-4c5f-4369-8bd0-494ca2c693fd" />

Behavior before:
Exporting the TPAR report could fail with an error indicating that the GST amount exceeded the
gross paid for certain vendors. Some payment lines were excluded from the SQL query,
leading to discrepancies in the report.

Behavior after:
The SQL query has been updated to include all relevant payment lines, including those in
asset_cash accounts. This ensures that the gross paid is calculated correctly, allowing the
TPAR report to be exported without errors.

Root Cause:
The previous query only considered asset_current and liability_current accounts, ignoring
asset_cash accounts. This omission caused the gross paid amount to be understated relative to
the total GST paid.

Steps to Reproduce:

1. Create a vendor bill.

2. Navigate to the Bank Reconciliation page (Accounting → Dashboard → Bank Journal).

3. Create a bank statement line for the bill amount.

4. Validate the statement line with the corresponding invoice line.

5. Generate the TPAR report — the payment amount should now be correctly included.

OPW: 5148697