**Disclaimer:**
This is the same fix as fbde024 but it was breaking the PoS, as we tried to get rid of some widgets to bypass the console warnings "missing_widgets".
We now make sure that the only warning we get are those "missing_widget" warnings while running the tour.

**Problem:**
When creating a new partner from PoS, the suggested pricelist is not the default pricelist we defined in the configuration. It worked before 18.0, but now the suggested pricelist is the first one that we defined in the configuration, not the one we set as default.

**Steps to reproduce:**
- In the configuration, enable flexible pricelists and fill some available pricelists.
- Set a default pricelist that is not the first one you defined in the available section.
- Open a session, click on the customer and click on create.
- Go to the Sales and Purchase tab.
- The pricelist is not the default one.

**Why the fix:**
If we are in PoS, we now put the default pricelist as a default for the new partner. We only do that if it is available, otherwise we fall back to the default flow.
This is how it worked before 18.0.

opw-4876573

### Issue:
The payment method `99 – Por Definir` was used as the default value for invoices, sale orders, and POS orders
This leads to fiscal inconsistencies, especially when invoices use the `PUE` payment policy, where this payment method is invalid

### Cause:
In the `_compute_l10n_mx_edi_payment_method_id` methods, the default value was always set to `Por Definir`

### Fix:
After discussion with the PO (MIAL), the chosen solution is to archive the payment method `99 – Por Definir`and remove it as a default value
All valid cases should already be handled explicitly, making it clear to the user that something is missing when the data is blank

### Steps to reproduce:
- Install `l10n_mx_edi` and switch to the MX company
- Create an invoice with today’s invoice date
- The payment policy is set to PUE
- Before the fix, the payment method is set to `Por Definir`

For Sale Order and POS Order tests, it's the default value as soon as you create an order

opw-5406038

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#104164

This commit fixes an issue introduced here : https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/240945 If the multi steps delivery was enabled, the flow would give a traceback

The qty_delivered on sale.order.line was not correctly computed when the original order was refunded with a ship later.

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
* Create a sale order for 5 quantities of any product
* Confirm the sale order
* Settle the order in the PoS
* At this point the qty_delivered on the sale order line is 5
* Now go back to the PoS and refund partially the order for 3 quantities and use the "Ship Later" option
> Observation: The qty_delivered is 0 instead of 2

Why the fix:
------------
This line would crash because picking would contain more than one record
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/2881f049b892b3380bcab62ad5b2b0b71a9ef261/addons/pos_sale/models/sale_order.py#L95

Instead of doing a groupby we just apply the logic separately for the
normal lines and the refund lines.

opw-5059560

_______________________________________
## Short functional explanation of the error
Let's say we have a products that has 2 suppliers. In the list of suppliers, the first one set has an expired date. If we generate a PO from an SO with the MTO route, the assigned supplier for this product will be the first one set in the list, therefore having an expired date.

## Reproduction Steps
1. Go to Inventory > Configuration > settings. Check the option Multi-Step routes.
2. Click on Configuration > routes and unarchive the Replenish On Order (MTO) route.
3. Create or use an already existing product. Go to the Inventory tab, and under Operations, check the routes Replenish on Order (MTO) and Buy.
4. Click on the Purchase tab. There, set a first vendor for which the end date is earlier than today. For the second one, set an end date for which the date is later than today.
5. Go to Sales and create a new quotation. Set a customer and add a line with the product you just set. Click confirm. A smart button 'Purchase' should appear. Click on it.

### Expected behavior
The assigned vendor of the PO should be the second vendor as it isn't expired yet.

### Unexpected behavior
The assigned vendor is the first vendor, expired.

## Origin of the issue
When generating a PO from an SO, the partner is the person ordering the product, not the vendor. Therefore, when this code is executed:

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/6b677319c47baacb5bee829b7e41448dec4136eb/addons/purchase_stock/models/stock_rule.py#L62-L66

no corresponding supplier is found, as
```self._get_partner_id(procurement.values, rule)``` returns the customer
and not the vendor. This leads us to the fallback:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/6b677319c47baacb5bee829b7e41448dec4136eb/addons/purchase_stock/models/stock_rule.py#L68-L72
which doesn't take into account the end date of vendors.

__
opw-5030849

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

### Issue:

Applying a push rule in attempt to reach a precise sublocation will not adapt the destination of the move based on the `final_location_id` but solely base the destination based on the push rule.

This is sub-optimal as the existence of an other push rule from this parent location to the sublocation is quite unlikely and validating that new move will therefore not push the product to its `location_final_id`.

### Concrete problematic example:

For instance, the `property_stock_customer` (Customer location) provides a precise `final_dest_id` to deliver the customer. While, in one step delivery (not relying on push mechanic), confirming a delivery will generate a delivery with `location_dest` set to the precise Customer location because of pull rules, in two steps, the final delivery ends up targeting the general `Partner/Customer` location.

This is particularly impactful in case of automatic batching based on destination location.

### Steps to reproduce:

- In the settings enable: Multi-Steps routes
- Inventory > Configuration > Warehouse Management > Warehouses
- Set your warehouse to delivery in 2 steps
- Create a contact say BOB and in the sale & purchase tab of its form set the Customer Location to a sublocation of Partners/Customers say: Partners/Customers/BOB
- Create and confirm a sale order for BOB for 1 unit of a any product
- Validate the pick
#### > The delivery and its move have `Partner/Customer` as `move_dest_id`.

### Cause of the issue:

During the `_run_push`, we only adapt the `location_dest_id` to match the `location_final_id` in the case where the new move skip push: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/61d2fb3bb3281f3455490ac6033b95e3c50b4e2b/addons/stock/models/stock_rule.py#L241-L245 However, in the present case where you push to a parent location of `location_final_id` the move does not `skip_push`: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/61d2fb3bb3281f3455490ac6033b95e3c50b4e2b/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L2034-L2037 and the `location_dest` is the one of the rule:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/61d2fb3bb3281f3455490ac6033b95e3c50b4e2b/addons/stock/models/stock_rule.py#L241-L242 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/61d2fb3bb3281f3455490ac6033b95e3c50b4e2b/addons/stock/models/stock_rule.py#L266

opw-5070855
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr