Tuesday, December 23, 2025
9 changes · saas-18.4
Enhancements to existing features
This update enhances the self-ordering system by displaying the table number directly within the generated QR codes. This makes it easier for staff to quickly identify which order corresponds to which table, improving order accuracy and efficiency.
Original PR description
Before this commit: ====================== It was difficult to identify which table a QR code belonged to when viewing the generated QR code PDFs. After this commit: ====================== The table number is now displayed between the Odoo logo in each table’s QR code, making it easier to recognize and differentiate table QR codes. Task-5217734 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#233935
Resolved issues and error corrections
This update allows businesses using the Mexican tax reporting (MX) module to define a custom sequence prefix for GI CFDI invoices issued from branch offices. Previously, the system always used the root company's sequence, which is now configurable to ensure correct invoice numbering and compliance with Mexican tax regulations. This change improves accuracy and simplifies reporting for businesses operating with multiple branches.
Original PR description
Add a way to set a custom prefix for GI sequences on the settings for MX. Get this sequence first on the branch before looking to the one on root company. opw-5096687 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#100017
This update resolves a bug where the cursor jumps to the end of the input after using the backspace button on the VoIP softphone's keypad on mobile devices. The issue stemmed from an interaction between the keypad's input handling and a zoom prevention feature. The fix ensures the cursor updates correctly after backspace actions, improving the user experience.
Original PR description
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…
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
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#101856This update corrects a bug where invoice due dates were incorrectly calculated when users had their timezones set to UTC. The change removes a timezone conversion step, ensuring due dates are calculated accurately based on the user's local time. This prevents invoices from appearing due prematurely or incorrectly.
Original PR description
This commit fixes the incorrect due date calculation of invoices. If user timezone is set to any UTC-* timezone, then the due date is calculated as the previous day to the actual due date. This is because the function `deserializeDateTime` was used, which considers the input date as UTC timezone and converts it to system timezone. For example, if the due date is "2025-11-20 00:00:00" and the system timezone is UTC-3, then the calculated due date is "2025-11-19 21:00:00". So when getting the difference from today's date (assuming today is "2025-11-20"), the difference is 1 day (which is not the expected value). This commit replaces the call of `deserializeDateTime` with `deserializeDate`, which removes the system timezone conversion. opw-5160764 --- I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#240785 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#236769
This update resolves issues preventing incorrect credit notes from being processed for Kenyan tax purposes. Specifically, the system now validates that credit notes match the original invoice's customer PIN and that the credit note date is not before the invoice date, ensuring compliance with KRA regulations. This improves the accuracy and reliability of credit note processing.
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#102475 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#100480
This update fixes a potential issue where archiving or reassigning employees could cause problems with Odoo's reporting and data views. The change ensures that only relevant employee versions are updated, preventing data corruption and maintaining the integrity of employee records. This improves the stability and reliability of the HR module.
Original PR description
Currently, it is possible to archive or reassign all versions of an employee if there exists more than 1. This leads to issues with generating the necessary SQL views for the `hr.employee.public` model. To rectify this issue, we check whether the versions of each employee is a subset of the records being written to. opw-5289226
This update fixes an issue where multiple loyalty programs on a product order weren't always applied correctly. By adding a 'mutex' to control program updates, the system now ensures all discounts are applied reliably, regardless of how many programs are active. This improves the accuracy of loyalty rewards.
Original PR description
When adding a lot of loyalty programs with discounts to an order the updatePrograms method could be called multiple times in parallel, that would cause an issue where some of the programs were not…
When adding a lot of loyalty programs with discounts to an order the updatePrograms method could be called multiple times in parallel, that would cause an issue where some of the programs were not applied correctly. Steps to reproduce: ------------------- * Create 7 loyalty programs that apply on the same product, each with a discount reward of 10%. (Give them different name) * Create a POS order with 1 unit of that product. > Observation: Only the 6 first programs are applied. Why the fix: ------------ The issue is happening because the updatePrograms is called multiple times in parallel, and when coming to this block of code : https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f3e74f9b840efef7c567ba31acd6ac61c79b5d6d/addons/pos_loyalty/static/src/overrides/models/pos_store.js#L182-L188 The last program has 2 coupons in the `couponPointChanges`, so it will proceed to delete all the coupons of the concerned program. To avoid this we use a mutex to ensure that only one call to updatePrograms is happening at a time. opw-4974788 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#240639 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#239662
This update fixes an issue where manually adjusted prices on customer invoices were being reset when the fiscal position was changed. The fix ensures that prices remain as the user intended, mirroring the behavior of sale orders. This improves accuracy and reduces potential errors in invoicing.
Original PR description
**Steps to reproduce:** * Install the **Accounting** module. * Create a customer invoice with at least one product line. * Manually adjust the **price_unit** on the invoice line. * Change the fiscal position on the invoice. * Click the **Update Taxes and Accounts** button. **Observed behavior:** * The manually adjusted price is reset to the product’s default sales price (e.g., 1000). * This occurs even though neither the product nor the UoM changed. * In contrast, **Sale Orders correctly preserve** manually edited prices in the same situation. **Cause:** * `action_update_fpos_values` method call the recomputation of unit price each time when we click update taxes and accounts button on invoice. **Fix:** * Add a condition to **skip price recomputation** when fiscal position changes. * This preserves manual prices when only the fiscal position changes. opw-5252832 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#240929 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#237914
This update fixes an issue where order totals were incorrect when using 'LOT' tracked products with groupable UoMs. The fix ensures that the price unit used for calculations matches the converted quantity, resolving a discrepancy in UoM conversions and improving price accuracy.
Original PR description
Steps to reproduce ------------------ 1. Make a product tracked by 'LOT' and having a groupable in pos UoM 2. Make a SO with that product, choosing another UoM from the same category (if we chose Kg in first step, choose gram here, etc) 3. Settle the order in PoS. We observe that the order's total amount is totally off, we explain why below. Why it's happening ------------------ The `lot_remaining_quantity` is quantity after converting to the original UoM (that of step 1, not that of step 2). We are using that quantity for lines having products tracked by 'LOT' and a groupable UoM; however, we are keeping price unit as if we are using the quantity before conversion, i.e. the quantity in the UoM of step 2. That creates a mismatch between the UoM and thus we miscalculte the total price. The fix ------- When using the converted quantity, also use the converted price unit. opw-5144326 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#240956 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#239858