**Steps to reproduce:**
* Install the **l10n_ch** module for a Swiss company.
* Create a vendor bill for a **foreign vendor**.
* Apply a reverse charge tax:
  * **8.1% R C** (figure **383a**), or
  * **7.7% R C** (figure **382a**).
* Confirm the vendor bill.
* Go to **Accounting → Reporting → Tax Report**.
* Generate the VAT report for the relevant period.

**Observed behavior:**
* Figure **383a** (8.1% reverse charge) is reported as **negative**.
* Figure **382a** (7.7% reverse charge) is reported as **negative**.
* This results in incorrect VAT reporting.

**Cause:**
* Reverse charge taxes use **negative tax rates** to model the reverse mechanism.
* The base amounts were tagged with **positive** signs, leading to negative values in the report.

**Fix:**
* Invert the base tax tag signs for reverse charge taxes:
  * **382a**: change base tag from `-382a` to `+382a`.
  * **383a**: change base tag from `-383a` to `+383a`.
* Reverse charge base amounts now appear as **positive** values in the VAT report.

opw-5257445

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#244934
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#244452

Handle `carryover_origin_report_line_id` for report line having `code = 'VP14b`, since the line does not exist in the new monthly VAT report after this commit: odoo/odoo@51a72ab42d118d6fb0eb3e3545a09e10019b9140

As the line is not present in the monthy vat report while mapping it will raise keyerror:

```py
File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/addons/l10n_it/migrations/0.7/post-map_carryover_to_new_report.py", line 52, in migrate
    data_to_insert = [
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/addons/l10n_it/migrations/0.7/post-map_carryover_to_new_report.py", line 53, in <listcomp>
    (code2expression_id[report_line_code], old2new_origin[carryover_origin_report_line_id], *other_external_vals)
KeyError: 80
```

```sql
apan_3806634=> select id,carryover_origin_report_line_id,target_report_expression_id from account_report_external_value;
 id | carryover_origin_report_line_id | target_report_expression_id
----+---------------------------------+-----------------------------
  3 |                              80 |                         102
  4 |                              80 |                         105
  7 |                              80 |                         102
  8 |                              80 |                         102
  9 |                              80 |                         102
 10 |                              80 |                         102
 11 |                              80 |                         102
(7 rows)

apan_3806634=> select id,name->>'en_US',code from account_report_line where id=80;
 id |           ?column?           | code
----+------------------------------+-------
 80 | VP14b - VAT payable (credit) | VP14b
(1 row)
```

Note this error will only appears in the dbs without this commit: odoo/odoo@a220a28595dbfacce2d8322222d1961547bb4b07

opw-5494959
upg-3806634
tbg-2272


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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#244685

### Issue:
The `hb-row-label` class shows inconsistent behavior in the builder
sidebar. The 'Option List' label appears centered rather than following
the standard alignment. In addition, the alignment of nested options
within the builder sidebar is marginally misaligned.

### Steps to Reproduce:
- Open the website and switch to edit mode.
- Drop a Form snippet onto the page.
- Add a new field and set its type to 'Multiple Checkbox'.
- In the builder sidebar, notice that the 'Option List' label is
  centered.

### Reason:
This [commit](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/2c90e135a30b5810be0e2796154d85a918fbe303) changed the `align-self` property of the `hb-row-label`
class from `baseline` to `center`. That change was intended to fix
alignment issues for nested options inside popovers. However, since
`hb-row-label` is also used globally, this caused misalignment in the
builder sidebar.

### Fix:
Apply a separate alignment rule for popover usage while keeping the
default `hb-row-label` alignment set to baseline. This restores the
correct label positioning in the builder sidebar (refer img 1) and
preserves the improved alignment inside popover (refer img 2).

### Visual Changes:
<img width="1866" height="622" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/b243fbf3-2f7f-4942-b1e4-7de7c5eafe0f" />

<img width="1843" height="688" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/562dfc33-43f9-45cd-b3ce-efec32e3cf45" />

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#242756

Currently, an error occurs when exporting an accounting report to 
PDF if any of the selected contacts do not have a name.

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install the `account_reports` and `contacts` modules.
- Go to Contacts and open any contact (e.g., Azure Interior).
- Click `Add` > `Save & Close`, then `save` the contact.
- Navigate to Accounting > Reporting > Aged Receivable.
- Click `Partners` button and select the newly created contact (e.g., `Azure Interior, Other Address`).
- Click `PDF` to export the report.

**Error:**
`TypeError: sequence item 0: expected str instance, bool found`

**Root Cause:**
At [1], `options['selected_partner_ids']` is built using `partner.name`, which may 
be `False` for unnamed contacts. At [2], the `partner_value` list may therefore 
contain `False` entries coming from `options['selected_partner_ids']`. When 
calling `', '.join(partner_value)`, an error is raised because the list contains 
`non-string` (`bool`) values.

**Fix:**
This commit prevents errors when exporting reports to PDF and ensures 
that partner names are displayed in the report the same way as in the 
partner selection widget.

[1]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/a0ec2fcdc043cf52f1a646e84b9b97466072d47f/account_reports/models/account_report.py#L745

[2]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/099c7b94ad08f83873c05ec528e16fbf806f47f2/account_reports/data/pdf_export_templates.xml#L84-L93

opw-5467321

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#105025
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#103828

Issue before this commit:
=========================

When creating a maintenance request from a work order in the Shop Floor module, a traceback was raised.

Steps to Reproduce:
=========================
- Install the mrp_maintenance module.
- Create a Manufacturing Order with at least one operation.
- Open the Shop Floor module.
- From a work order, click on the three-dot (extra) menu.
- Click on Request Maintenance.
- A traceback occurs: ValueError: External ID not found in the system: mrp_maintenance.maintenance_request_view_form_inherit_mrp_workorder

Cause of the issue:
=========================
The above XML ID was previously used to add a custom JS widget that displays a notification when creating a maintenance request from the Shop Floor.

During a recent refactoring in this [PR](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/100326), this XML record was removed (while the notification functionality remained intact). However, the Python code was still referencing this XML ID, which has now been reintroduced in this [PR](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/100348), and this mismatch resulted in the traceback.

With This Commit:
=========================
Ensure that creating a maintenance request from the Shop Floor no longer raises a missing external ID error, while keeping the expected behaviour unchanged.

***Behavior:***
In a setting with a second warehouse that is supplied by the first one. Creating a product that uses that ressuply route,
and then adding it to the bom of a kit product will make it so that when ordering the kit product to the second warehouse from the MPS, the system will create an order for an exponential amount of components.

When calling action_replenish, kit products for which the components don't have an MPS entry will have their product_ratio computed to know how many components to reorder. However the current formula is wrong or outdated and ends up returning the squared amount.

***Steps to reproduce:***
- Create a second warehouse.
- Check Resuply From 'First Warehouse' (this will unarchive a route)
- Create a product that uses that route for reordering.
- Create a second product
- Create a kit for that product BOM composed of the first product make sure the amount of component is more than 1
- In the Master Production Schedule: Add the kit product and make sure it is produced in the second warehouse with the unarchived route.
- Add any amount to reorder in 'Replenishment' then click the Order button.
- If you go to deliveries and look for your component, you'll see the amount of component per kit squared multiplied by the reordered kit amount.

opw-5351460

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#101462

Currently, an error occurs when a user tries to post an invoice using a payment method that shares the same code as another payment method.

Steps to replicate:
- Install `l10n_mx_edi` and `accountant` with demo and switch to `ZAPATERIA URTADO ÑERI` (Mexican company).
- Go to `Accounting > Configuration > Payment Way Codes (MX)`.
- Open `Efectivo` and change its code to `02`.
- Create a new Invoice, select `Efectivo` in the Payment Way.
- Add a customer and a move line, then confirm the invoice and send it (make sure CFDI is checked).

Error:
```
  File '/home/odoo/src/enterprise/19.0/l10n_mx_edi/models/account_move.py', line 424, in _l10n_mx_edi_get_extra_invoice_report_values
    cfdi_infos['payment_way'] = f'{payment_way} - {payment_method.name}'
  File '/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/odoo/orm/fields.py', line 1659, in __get__
    record.ensure_one()
  File '/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/odoo/orm/models.py', line 5934, in ensure_one
    raise ValueError('Expected singleton: %s' % self)
ValueError: Expected singleton: l10n_mx_edi.payment.method(1, 22)
```

Cause:
- Issue originated through this [PR] that gave access to write on the model.
- As the user made the codes of two payment methods same, the [search] returned two records and while accessing `payment_method.name` on two records it results into this error.

Solution:
- Made the fields read-only via XML to prevent users from changing the payment method codes established by the Mexican government.
- Added limit to the search query to prevent multiple records. (for existing DBs that might have changed payment method codes).
- Removed unlink rights on the `l10n_mx_edi.payment.method` model.
- Added a SQL constraint to allow only unique values for the code.

[PR]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/38046

[search]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/18117c6a9fbf270ace1c551616828a85713d5225/l10n_mx_edi/models/account_move.py#L423

sentry-7171030995

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#104914
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#103944

Steps to reproduce:
- Activate the GS1 nomenclature
- Create a product with barcode: 15099590483921
- Scan the product from the Barcode app main menu

Problem:
A ValidationError is raised:
"A GS1 barcode nomenclature pattern was matched. However, the barcode failed to be converted to a valid date."

Explanation:
GS1 barcodes must follow a strict nomenclature based on well-defined
rules.
For example, a GS1 product barcode should start with the Application
Identifier 01 followed by 14 digits.

The GS1 parser processes the barcode rule by rule and applies the first
matching rule. In this case, the barcode 15099590483921 is interpreted
as a date because it starts with "15", which corresponds to a GS1
Application Identifier for a date. As a result, the parser attempts to
convert the first six digits into a date and raises a ValidationError.

Solution:
Catch the ValidationError raised during GS1 date parsing in main_menu
and explicitly reset parsed_results to False, allowing the normal main
menu resolution logic to continue. This prevents GS1 parsing errors
from blocking valid barcodes and ensures that product, picking, or
location detection still works as expected.

opw-5357611

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#104832
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#104641

When a preparation printer is configured to print only specific product categories (e.g., drinks only), adding items from other categories (e.g., food) would cause the printer to reprint the previous order with a "NEW (DUPLICATE!)" label.

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
* Configure a restaurant/bar POS with a preparation printer set to print only drinks
* On a table, order a drink item → printer correctly prints "NEW" ticket with the drink
* On the same table, add a food item (not in printer categories)
* Trigger sending to preparation (e.g., validate order or send to kitchen)

> Observation: The printer prints a duplicate of the previous drink order showing "NEW (DUPLICATE!)" instead of staying silent.

Why the fix:
------------
The `sendOrderInPreparation` method was automatically reusing `order.uiState.lastPrint` when no preparation category changes were detected, causing an implicit reprint. This behavior is incorrect when the order only contains items outside preparation printer categories - the printer should simply not print anything.

The fix:
- Prevents automatic reprint when there are no prep category changes
- Still calls `updateLastOrderChange()` to mark the order as "sent" and prevent the restaurant popup warning about unsent orders
- Only allows explicit reprints via `opts.explicitReprint` flag for future use cases

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#244756
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#239003

It is possible to run a cron via the "Run Manually" button of the ir.cron form view. In 18.4 and before, in case the cron failed due to an exception, that exception would appear in the web client. Since 19.0 and commit 78c00d2, the exception no longer bubbles-up to the web client. It is only logged in the server logs.

Many system admins and also the Odoo support use on the "Run Manually" to quickly test a cron and make sure it works. The change done in 19.0 is considered as a nasty surprise. They want their exceptions back!

When running a cron manually, we now track the logs that are emitted on the cron logger and search for an error with an exception. May we find one, we raise it with a proper traceback chain, which bubbles up to the web client and is shown in the "An error occured" modal.

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#243623

Currently, an error occurs when exporting an accounting report to 
PDF if any of the selected contacts do not have a name.

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install the `account_reports` and `contacts` modules.
- Go to Contacts and open any contact (e.g., Azure Interior).
- Click `Add` > `Save & Close`, then `save` the contact.
- Navigate to Accounting > Reporting > Aged Receivable.
- Click `Partners` button and select the newly created contact (e.g., `Azure Interior, Other Address`).
- Click `PDF` to export the report.

**Error:**
`TypeError: sequence item 0: expected str instance, bool found`

**Root Cause:**
At [1], `options['selected_partner_ids']` is built using `partner.name`, which may 
be `False` for unnamed contacts. At [2], the `partner_value` list may therefore 
contain `False` entries coming from `options['selected_partner_ids']`. When 
calling `', '.join(partner_value)`, an error is raised because the list contains 
`non-string` (`bool`) values.

**Fix:**
This commit prevents errors when exporting reports to PDF and ensures 
that partner names are displayed in the report the same way as in the 
partner selection widget.

[1]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/a0ec2fcdc043cf52f1a646e84b9b97466072d47f/account_reports/models/account_report.py#L745

[2]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/099c7b94ad08f83873c05ec528e16fbf806f47f2/account_reports/data/pdf_export_templates.xml#L84-L93

opw-5467321

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#105025
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#103828

**Issue**:
The displayed available quantity on the ecommerce product page is incorrect for rental products when "continue selling" is enabled.

**Steps to reproduce**:
- Create a rental product tracked in stock with a quantity of 5
- Enable "continue selling" and "show available quantity below 10"
- Go to the ecommerce page of this product
- Rent 3 units for a given period, confirm and pay
- Return to the ecommerce product page
-> Whatever the selected renting period, the displayed quantity is always 2

**Cause**:
The website displays `free_qty`:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/41c729e22c5fd1abb690f8335e933f793be0b319/website_sale_stock_renting/static/src/xml/website_sale_stock_renting_product_availability.xml#L15

`free_qty` is computed in:
https://github.com/odoo-dev/odoo/blob/0935829ddaecd7b2b6eec9157f8f790b546d06ff/addons/website_sale_stock/models/product_template.py#L36

which leads to:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/41c729e22c5fd1abb690f8335e933f793be0b319/website_sale_stock_renting/models/website.py#L10

and ultimately relies on:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/37bf1703c7478a3010b71cd60bbb43b3295a605b/addons/stock/models/product.py#L213

This computation does not take the selected renting period into account.

There is a period-aware computation here:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/41c729e22c5fd1abb690f8335e933f793be0b319/website_sale_stock_renting/models/website.py#L15C17-L21C1

but it is only triggered when `product.allow_out_of_stock_order` is False (i.e. when "continue selling" is disabled).

opw-[5354163](https://www.odoo.com/web#id=5354163&view_type=form&model=project.task)

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#104655
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#103333

***Behavior:***
In a setting with a second warehouse that is supplied by the first one. Creating a product that uses that ressuply route,
and then adding it to the bom of a kit product will make it so that when ordering the kit product to the second warehouse from the MPS, the system will create an order for an exponential amount of components.

When calling action_replenish, kit products for which the components don't have an MPS entry will have their product_ratio computed to know how many components to reorder. However the current formula is wrong or outdated and ends up returning the squared amount.

***Steps to reproduce:***
- Create a second warehouse.
- Check Resuply From 'First Warehouse' (this will unarchive a route)
- Create a product that uses that route for reordering.
- Create a second product
- Create a kit for that product BOM composed of the first product make sure the amount of component is more than 1
- In the Master Production Schedule: Add the kit product and make sure it is produced in the second warehouse with the unarchived route.
- Add any amount to reorder in 'Replenishment' then click the Order button.
- If you go to deliveries and look for your component, you'll see the amount of component per kit squared multiplied by the reordered kit amount.

opw-5351460

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#101462

Currently, an error occurs when a user tries to post an invoice using a payment method that shares the same code as another payment method.

Steps to replicate:
- Install `l10n_mx_edi` and `accountant` with demo and switch to `ZAPATERIA URTADO ÑERI` (Mexican company).
- Go to `Accounting > Configuration > Payment Way Codes (MX)`.
- Open `Efectivo` and change its code to `02`.
- Create a new Invoice, select `Efectivo` in the Payment Way.
- Add a customer and a move line, then confirm the invoice and send it (make sure CFDI is checked).

Error:
```
  File '/home/odoo/src/enterprise/19.0/l10n_mx_edi/models/account_move.py', line 424, in _l10n_mx_edi_get_extra_invoice_report_values
    cfdi_infos['payment_way'] = f'{payment_way} - {payment_method.name}'
  File '/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/odoo/orm/fields.py', line 1659, in __get__
    record.ensure_one()
  File '/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/odoo/orm/models.py', line 5934, in ensure_one
    raise ValueError('Expected singleton: %s' % self)
ValueError: Expected singleton: l10n_mx_edi.payment.method(1, 22)
```

Cause:
- Issue originated through this [PR] that gave access to write on the model.
- As the user made the codes of two payment methods same, the [search] returned two records and while accessing `payment_method.name` on two records it results into this error.

Solution:
- Made the fields read-only via XML to prevent users from changing the payment method codes established by the Mexican government.
- Added limit to the search query to prevent multiple records. (for existing DBs that might have changed payment method codes).
- Removed unlink rights on the `l10n_mx_edi.payment.method` model.
- Added a SQL constraint to allow only unique values for the code.

[PR]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/38046

[search]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/18117c6a9fbf270ace1c551616828a85713d5225/l10n_mx_edi/models/account_move.py#L423

sentry-7171030995

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#104914
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#103944

Currently, an error occurs when exporting an accounting report to 
PDF if any of the selected contacts do not have a name.

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install the `account_reports` and `contacts` modules.
- Go to Contacts and open any contact (e.g., Azure Interior).
- Click `Add` > `Save & Close`, then `save` the contact.
- Navigate to Accounting > Reporting > Aged Receivable.
- Click `Partners` button and select the newly created contact (e.g., `Azure Interior, Other Address`).
- Click `PDF` to export the report.

**Error:**
`TypeError: sequence item 0: expected str instance, bool found`

**Root Cause:**
At [1], `options['selected_partner_ids']` is built using `partner.name`, which may 
be `False` for unnamed contacts. At [2], the `partner_value` list may therefore 
contain `False` entries coming from `options['selected_partner_ids']`. When 
calling `', '.join(partner_value)`, an error is raised because the list contains 
`non-string` (`bool`) values.

**Fix:**
This commit prevents errors when exporting reports to PDF and ensures 
that partner names are displayed in the report the same way as in the 
partner selection widget.

[1]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/a0ec2fcdc043cf52f1a646e84b9b97466072d47f/account_reports/models/account_report.py#L745

[2]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/099c7b94ad08f83873c05ec528e16fbf806f47f2/account_reports/data/pdf_export_templates.xml#L84-L93

opw-5467321

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#105025
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#103828

***Behavior:***
In a setting with a second warehouse that is supplied by the first one. Creating a product that uses that ressuply route,
and then adding it to the bom of a kit product will make it so that when ordering the kit product to the second warehouse from the MPS, the system will create an order for an exponential amount of components.

When calling action_replenish, kit products for which the components don't have an MPS entry will have their product_ratio computed to know how many components to reorder. However the current formula is wrong or outdated and ends up returning the squared amount.

***Steps to reproduce:***
- Create a second warehouse.
- Check Resuply From 'First Warehouse' (this will unarchive a route)
- Create a product that uses that route for reordering.
- Create a second product
- Create a kit for that product BOM composed of the first product make sure the amount of component is more than 1
- In the Master Production Schedule: Add the kit product and make sure it is produced in the second warehouse with the unarchived route.
- Add any amount to reorder in 'Replenishment' then click the Order button.
- If you go to deliveries and look for your component, you'll see the amount of component per kit squared multiplied by the reordered kit amount.

opw-5351460

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#101462

Currently, an error occurs when a user tries to post an invoice using a payment method that shares the same code as another payment method.

Steps to replicate:
- Install `l10n_mx_edi` and `accountant` with demo and switch to `ZAPATERIA URTADO ÑERI` (Mexican company).
- Go to `Accounting > Configuration > Payment Way Codes (MX)`.
- Open `Efectivo` and change its code to `02`.
- Create a new Invoice, select `Efectivo` in the Payment Way.
- Add a customer and a move line, then confirm the invoice and send it (make sure CFDI is checked).

Error:
```
  File '/home/odoo/src/enterprise/19.0/l10n_mx_edi/models/account_move.py', line 424, in _l10n_mx_edi_get_extra_invoice_report_values
    cfdi_infos['payment_way'] = f'{payment_way} - {payment_method.name}'
  File '/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/odoo/orm/fields.py', line 1659, in __get__
    record.ensure_one()
  File '/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/odoo/orm/models.py', line 5934, in ensure_one
    raise ValueError('Expected singleton: %s' % self)
ValueError: Expected singleton: l10n_mx_edi.payment.method(1, 22)
```

Cause:
- Issue originated through this [PR] that gave access to write on the model.
- As the user made the codes of two payment methods same, the [search] returned two records and while accessing `payment_method.name` on two records it results into this error.

Solution:
- Made the fields read-only via XML to prevent users from changing the payment method codes established by the Mexican government.
- Added limit to the search query to prevent multiple records. (for existing DBs that might have changed payment method codes).
- Removed unlink rights on the `l10n_mx_edi.payment.method` model.
- Added a SQL constraint to allow only unique values for the code.

[PR]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/38046

[search]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/18117c6a9fbf270ace1c551616828a85713d5225/l10n_mx_edi/models/account_move.py#L423

sentry-7171030995

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#104914
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#103944

Scenario:

- Setup Unsplash and install website
- Set a user as "Website: Editor and Designer"
- Login as that user and go to any website page with a qweb view
- Go to edit mode and drop Text-Image in a view
- Replace the image with an unsplash image and then save

Result: the save fails without any message shown, and there is a
security access WARNING in the logs.

Note: a similar scenario can be done for a restricted editor that is
editing a HTML field it has write access to.

Issue: to save a model with res_id 0, we need to either be admin
(base.group_system) or the record creator. Since
9c9c58a5a10101532cbf046d21d4a63c2b7d2838 to bypass the mimetype
neutering of happening, we create the attachment as SUPERUSER.

Then when we modify the attachment url (for unsplash images), we have no
access right to the attachment since we are not the creator.

Fix: create the attachment with the current user, and only use
SUPERUSER to set the mimetype if it was neutered (ie. the user doesn't
have write access right to ir.ui.view, which in normal use case should
only happen for "Restricted Editor"). This way the image is created by
the user that uploaded it and not SUPERUSER.

opw-4850611
opw-5387258
opw-5489219

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#244831
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#219472

Currently, an error occurs when uploading `encrypted or incomplete` 
PDF files (missing EOF marker) while creating a quotation document 
header or footer.

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install the `sale_pdf_quote_builder` module.
- Navigate to: Sales > Configuration > Headers/Footers.
- Upload encrypted file [1], or incomplete file [2].

**Error:**
`PyPDF2.errors.DependencyError: PyCryptodome is required for AES algorithm`
`PyPDF2.errors.PdfReadError: EOF marker not found`

**Root cause:**
At [3], `_get_form_fields_from_pdf` and `_ensure_document_not_encrypted` directly 
call `pdf.PdfFileReader`, when it fails to read or decrypt the file, Python raises 
an error.

**Fix:**
This commit prevents errors when users upload unreadable or encrypted PDF files.

[1]:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1moSlwXHkqcV6_7zHBNhLMLi-9Ye_xDGJ/view?usp=sharing

[2]:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16O4LLH8dL0RWmbOx4HrcooFUyesWaVi-/view?usp=sharing

[3]:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/694f1d0fb03b56dd41a59eb676e56622634cc91b/addons/sale_pdf_quote_builder/utils.py#L11

sentry-6928220164
opw-5227601

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#245109
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#230712

Currently, an error occurs when exporting an accounting report to 
PDF if any of the selected contacts do not have a name.

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install the `account_reports` and `contacts` modules.
- Go to Contacts and open any contact (e.g., Azure Interior).
- Click `Add` > `Save & Close`, then `save` the contact.
- Navigate to Accounting > Reporting > Aged Receivable.
- Click `Partners` button and select the newly created contact (e.g., `Azure Interior, Other Address`).
- Click `PDF` to export the report.

**Error:**
`TypeError: sequence item 0: expected str instance, bool found`

**Root Cause:**
At [1], `options['selected_partner_ids']` is built using `partner.name`, which may 
be `False` for unnamed contacts. At [2], the `partner_value` list may therefore 
contain `False` entries coming from `options['selected_partner_ids']`. When 
calling `', '.join(partner_value)`, an error is raised because the list contains 
`non-string` (`bool`) values.

**Fix:**
This commit prevents errors when exporting reports to PDF and ensures 
that partner names are displayed in the report the same way as in the 
partner selection widget.

[1]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/a0ec2fcdc043cf52f1a646e84b9b97466072d47f/account_reports/models/account_report.py#L745

[2]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/099c7b94ad08f83873c05ec528e16fbf806f47f2/account_reports/data/pdf_export_templates.xml#L84-L93

opw-5467321

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#105025
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#103828

**Issue**
Changing the workcenter of a workorder to another with a different time efficiency does not correctly update `date_finished`, causing the Gantt progress bar to show an incorrect expected duration.

**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create two workcenters marked as alternatives (100% and 50% efficiency).
2. Create a BOM operation that produces 100 products with a 1h expected duration each, on the 100% workcenter.
3. Create and plan an MO using this BOM.
4. In Planning > Planning by Workcenter (Gantt), drag the workorder to the 50% efficiency workcenter. → Expected duration remains 100h instead of 200h.
5. Drag the same workorder back to the 100% workcenter. → Expected duration becomes 200h instead of 100h.

**Cause**
`date_finished` is recomputed in `write()` using the *previous* workcenter’s efficiency, because the duration calculation happens before the new `workcenter_id` is applied: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/18.0/addons/mrp/models/mrp_workorder.py#L471

Since the Gantt progress bar uses the interval [`[date_start, date_finished]`](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/18.0/mrp_workorder/models/mrp_workorder.py#L672C13-L674C107) to compute the expected duration (via `_web_gantt_progress_bar_workcenter_id`), the displayed duration becomes wrong.

opw-5224272

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#239021

Currently, an error occurs when exporting an accounting report to 
PDF if any of the selected contacts do not have a name.

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install the `account_reports` and `contacts` modules.
- Go to Contacts and open any contact (e.g., Azure Interior).
- Click `Add` > `Save & Close`, then `save` the contact.
- Navigate to Accounting > Reporting > Aged Receivable.
- Click `Partners` button and select the newly created contact (e.g., `Azure Interior, Other Address`).
- Click `PDF` to export the report.

**Error:**
`TypeError: sequence item 0: expected str instance, bool found`

**Root Cause:**
At [1], `options['selected_partner_ids']` is built using `partner.name`, which may 
be `False` for unnamed contacts. At [2], the `partner_value` list may therefore 
contain `False` entries coming from `options['selected_partner_ids']`. When 
calling `', '.join(partner_value)`, an error is raised because the list contains 
`non-string` (`bool`) values.

**Fix:**
This commit prevents errors when exporting reports to PDF and ensures 
that partner names are displayed in the report the same way as in the 
partner selection widget.

[1]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/a0ec2fcdc043cf52f1a646e84b9b97466072d47f/account_reports/models/account_report.py#L745

[2]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/099c7b94ad08f83873c05ec528e16fbf806f47f2/account_reports/data/pdf_export_templates.xml#L84-L93

opw-5467321

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#105025
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#103828

## Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:
The `is_settling_account` flag on a Point of Sale order is not reset to False if the user cancels a **Settle Due** operation.

## Current behavior before PR:
When a user initiates a **Settle Due** payment for a customer, Odoo creates a new order and sets the `is_settling_account` flag to True. If the user proceeds to the payment screen but then navigates back (to the product screen) instead of completing the payment, the flag remains True.

This is problematic because the user can then add regular products to this same order and check out. The order is processed as a normal sale, but it is incorrectly flagged as a settlement, which can lead to error on codes depending on this.

## Desired behavior after PR is merged:
After this fix, if a user leaves the payment screen during a **Settle Due** operation, the `is_settling_account` flag on the order will be correctly reset to False. 

task-id - 5144679

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#104438
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#98463

Currently, an error occurs when exporting an accounting report to 
PDF if any of the selected contacts do not have a name.

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install the `account_reports` and `contacts` modules.
- Go to Contacts and open any contact (e.g., Azure Interior).
- Click `Add` > `Save & Close`, then `save` the contact.
- Navigate to Accounting > Reporting > Aged Receivable.
- Click `Partners` button and select the newly created contact (e.g., `Azure Interior, Other Address`).
- Click `PDF` to export the report.

**Error:**
`TypeError: sequence item 0: expected str instance, bool found`

**Root Cause:**
At [1], `options['selected_partner_ids']` is built using `partner.name`, which may 
be `False` for unnamed contacts. At [2], the `partner_value` list may therefore 
contain `False` entries coming from `options['selected_partner_ids']`. When 
calling `', '.join(partner_value)`, an error is raised because the list contains 
`non-string` (`bool`) values.

**Fix:**
This commit prevents errors when exporting reports to PDF and ensures 
that partner names are displayed in the report the same way as in the 
partner selection widget.

[1]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/a0ec2fcdc043cf52f1a646e84b9b97466072d47f/account_reports/models/account_report.py#L745

[2]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/099c7b94ad08f83873c05ec528e16fbf806f47f2/account_reports/data/pdf_export_templates.xml#L84-L93

opw-5467321

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#105025
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#103828

Before this commit:
==================================
In a Manufacturing Order(MO) with manual consumption of components, The quantity of component consumed shown in Shopfloor dialog didn’t match with consumed quantity shown in MO after marking a work order as done.

Steps to Reproduce:
==================================
1. Install `mrp_workorder` module.
2. Create a BOM with one component and two operations.
3. Set the component to be consumed in the first operation (manual consumption).
4. Create a MO for the finished product.(e.g., MO to produce 10 quantity)
5. Go to the Shopfloor and register a production.(e.g., 7 instead of 10).
6. Click on the component line → Check the consumed quantity shown in the dialog → Close dialog without applying it.
7. Validate the workorder in Shopfloor (A backorder creation dialog will appear; choose either option).
8. Check the consumed quantity of component in the MO form view.

There is a mismatch between what was shown in Shopfloor dialog and what is shown
in the MO form view.

Cause of the Issue:
==================================
The Shopfloor dialog `MrpQuantityDialog` uses the `quantity` field of the move, and this field is updated when the work order is marked as done to align consumed quantity with produced quantity, resulting in an inconsistency.

After this commit:
==================================
These changes ensure the consumed quantity shown in shop floor dialog correctly matches the consumed quantity shown in MO after marking a work order as done, enhancing data consistency between Shopfloor and the Manufacturing Order.

TaskId-5068382

### Issue:
When having a template with a company but no department, it's not selected by new appraisal.

### Steps to reproduce:
- Have an employee whose appraisal date is today.
- Have only one template, with the company of the employee but no department
- Run the cron "Appraisal: Run employee appraisal"
- Open the Appraisals app
- Click on the newly created appraisal
- It doesn't have the template

### Cause:
- In `_compute_appraisal_template()`, only the department of the appraisal is used to compute the template.
But `_create_new_appraisal()` doesn't include the department in `appraisal_values` to create the appraisal.
So `appraisal.department_id` is `False` and the template from the department is ignored. 

- Another issue is if the employee has no department, then the appraisal also has no department.
Then no template is selected by the search domain. 

### Solution:
- Include `department_id` in `appraisal_values`
- Modify the search domain to include the case where the appraisal has no department

opw-5477450

***Behavior:***
In a setting with a second warehouse that is supplied by the first one. Creating a product that uses that ressuply route,
and then adding it to the bom of a kit product will make it so that when ordering the kit product to the second warehouse from the MPS, the system will create an order for an exponential amount of components.

When calling action_replenish, kit products for which the components don't have an MPS entry will have their product_ratio computed to know how many components to reorder. However the current formula is wrong or outdated and ends up returning the squared amount.

***Steps to reproduce:***
- Create a second warehouse.
- Check Resuply From 'First Warehouse' (this will unarchive a route)
- Create a product that uses that route for reordering.
- Create a second product
- Create a kit for that product BOM composed of the first product make sure the amount of component is more than 1
- In the Master Production Schedule: Add the kit product and make sure it is produced in the second warehouse with the unarchived route.
- Add any amount to reorder in 'Replenishment' then click the Order button.
- If you go to deliveries and look for your component, you'll see the amount of component per kit squared multiplied by the reordered kit amount.

opw-5351460

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#101462

**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

Steps to reproduce:
- Enable “Packaging” in Inventory settings.
- Create a storable product “P1” with:
    - weight: 10 kg
- Create a delivery picking:
    - Add one unit of P1
    - Mark as “To Do”
    - Set quantity to 1 → the move becomes assigned and the picking weight is correctly computed to 10
- Click “Put in Pack” → a package is created with `shipping_weight = 0`, and the picking weight incorrectly computed to 0

Problem:
- `picking.shipping_weight` is computed as: `weight_bulk` + sum(`pack.shipping_weight or pack.weight`) https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/17.0/addons/stock_delivery/models/stock_picking.py#L72-L79
- Once the product is placed in a package:
    - `weight_bulk` becomes 0 (because Total weight of products which are not in a package). https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/17.0/addons/stock_delivery/models/stock_picking.py#L96
    - `pack.shipping_weight` is 0 on creation.
    - The fallback `pack.weight` is 0 because its compute depends on the `picking_id` in context. Without this context, the compute uses only quants https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f7c033eff7b7bc83d6d18fc5e4df320f43ae5021/addons/delivery/models/stock_quant_package.py#L11-L13

opw-5357843

Issue before this commit:
=========================

The high-priority maintenance request count (todo_request_count_high_priority) 
was not calculated correctly.

Steps to Reproduce:
=========================
- Install the maintenance module.
- Create a maintenance request and set the Priority to High (3-starred) in the form view.
- Open the dashboard.
- Observe that the high-priority request count is not displayed.
- The count always remains 0, even when high-priority requests exist.

Cause of the issue:
=========================
In this [PR](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/94866), the logic was mistakenly changed. 
The priority field is defined as a Selection field, but while computing the count, the comparison 
was done against an integer(3, not '3') instead of the actual string value. Since the stored 
value is '3' (string), the condition is always evaluated to False, resulting in a count of 0.

With This Commit:
=========================
Ensure that high-priority maintenance requests are correctly counted and displayed on 
the dashboard when they exist. This provides better visibility of critical requests and
helps users prioritise maintenance work effectively.