### Issue:
On a Mexican sale order, it was possible to have an invalid partner address while `CFDI to Public` was not enabled
In this situation, an online payment could be initiated, but a silent error occurred during move validation:
the transaction was created, but the payment was never recorded, and no error appeared in the portal or the SO chatter

### Cause:
The CFDI validation error is raised internally but never surfaced to the user
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/91655
The PO (MIAL) recommended automatically enabling `CFDI to Public` when the partner address is incomplete,
forcing the user to complete the data This also ensures that the payment can be confirmed properly

### Steps to reproduce:
- Install `l10n_mx_edi_sale` and switch to the MX company
- Configure a Payment Provider and Payment Method (e.g., demo)
- Create a customer without ZIP or country
- Create a Sale Order for that customer
- In Other Info, set Online Payment to 100%
- Send the quotation and open the link in a private window
- Sign and Pay

Before the fix: the transaction is created, but no payment is recorded, and no error is shown

opw-5023724

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#101881

Backport of https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/101643.

Original commit message for completeness:

Calling Avatax without lines results in an error and blocks flows:

```
Odoo could not fetch the taxes related to MXXX - SOXXX/XXX.
Please check the status of `Sales Order XXX` in the AvaTax portal.
Transactions must have at least one line.
```

There are various cases this can happen:

1/ if industry_fsm_stock is installed, empty orders are confirmed [1], 2/ if you put the end_date of a subscription before the next_invoice_date,
   then none of the lines are considered invoiceable [2] and you get the
   error when viewing the subscription in the portal

This commit filters out orders without lines.

It's also possible to filter this on the level of the models by doing it in _get_and_set_external_taxes_on_eligible_records(). However, this means doing it separately for each model, and requires every implementer do it manually.

[1] https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/703e7fd413e93a8287da98286aa93b9699ae3e96/industry_fsm_stock/models/project_task.py#L159
[2] https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/c7bf4367a9bf6757a36a9f34a872a6e35a19a3a5/sale_subscription/models/sale_order_line.py#L475

opw-5214609
opw-5247727
opw-5311132
opw-5385960

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#105587

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:
This issue occured because in the previous update we add a condition to restrict multiple tax groups excluding the STLG.
Apparently there is a case where some users create their own tax groups (for example for PPH) so when they want to print an efaktur it will raise an error.

Current behavior before PR:
If a user create their own tax with a new tax group (outside of the 6 groups defined in `l10n_id`) and use it in invoice line along with one of the 6 tax groups excluding the STLG then it will blocked the print efaktur because it will raise an error  

Desired behavior after PR is merged:
- The restriction in tax groups only applied for the 6 tax groups in l10n_id so if an invoice line
  has multiple tax groups as long as there no more than one of the 6 tax groups excluding the STLG then
  it should be able to print the efaktur.
- Also when building the efaktur coretax value, the new tax group should not be included in the regular_tax
  variable which will cause the value to be 11/12 of the original value.
- Add new condition to block the print efaktur if there is a tax inside the invoice but none of it
  belong to the 6 ppn tax groups (there is already a condition to block if no tax is given, but now since there
  are cases where they use tax group outside of the defined tax groups then it will print the efaktur)
- If an invoice line does not have any ppn_tax_groups but there are other line in the same invoice
  that has it then it will still be able to print the efaktur, but the line without the ppn tax will
  have the OtherTaxBase and VATRate set to zero which will calculate the VAT as 0 too.

[5434656](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project.task/5434656)


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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#244760
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#241979

An error currently occurs when a user tries to confirm an account move using a document number that isn’t purely numeric and contains ASCII characters other than digits.

Steps to replicate:
- Install `l10n_cl` with demo and switch to CL company.
- Create a new invoice and add customer as `Andes Innovación SpA`.
- Add a move line > Add a product, price and tax.
- Give Document Number as `11-11`.
- Save and Confirm.

Error:
```
  File /home/odoo/odoo18/enterprise/account_accountant/models/account_move.py, line 119, in action_post
    res = super().action_post()
  File /home/odoo/odoo18/community/addons/account/models/account_move.py, line 5478, in action_post
    self._post(soft=False)
  File /home/odoo/odoo18/enterprise/l10n_cl_edi/models/account_move.py, line 161, in _post
    move._l10n_cl_create_dte()
  File /home/odoo/odoo18/enterprise/l10n_cl_edi/models/account_move.py, line 646, in _l10n_cl_create_dte
    folio = int(self.l10n_latam_document_number)
ValueError: invalid literal for int() with base 10: '11-11'
```

Cause:
- Trying to convert the document number to integer which includes some characters that are not numeric causes the error.

Solution:
- Specifically for Chile, the document number (folio) cant include anything other than numbers (Check the Sources listed below).
- Added a constraint on the field `l10n_latam_document_number` which only allows numbers using regex.

Sources:
- https://www.sii.cl/pagina/clave/folio.htm : The official Internal Revenue Service website for Chile provides information on the standard folio, along with a sample.
- https://www.sii.cl/factura_electronica/formato_dte.pdf : Refer to PG:11, Sr No:3, which specifies that the Folio should be of type NUM, meaning it must contain only numeric characters.
- The folio is created [here] that will be sent later to the authorities in the form of xml.

[here]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/5a8bdb586e2d0bf9948a2d0b4c5e30b3849c0414/l10n_cl_edi/template/dte_template.xml#L8

No ID
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#241505

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Install modules `sale_management` and `l10n_din5008_sale`
2. Go to Settings, Configure Document Layout and set layout to DIN 5008
3. Create a new Sale Order
4. Set a customer, add a product, and fill in the Delivery Date (Other Info)
5. Click on Print and Preview

**Issue:**
The Delivery Date (commitment_date) is not displayed on:
- The DIN 5008 sale order report
- The sale order preview (portal view)

Functional experts confirmed that the Delivery Date must be visible when using the DIN 5008 layout.

**Cause:**
The `commitment_date` field was not included in the DIN 5008 sale order report template nor in the preview view.

**Solution:**
This commit adds the Delivery Date information to:
- The DIN 5008 sale order report template
- The sale order portal/preview view

**opw-5490651**

**Before:**
<img width="560" height="145" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/fb29cda1-d668-4682-aa04-12c613f248d8" />
<img width="861" height="268" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/615f259f-e0ff-4fb5-9852-1fdd75cda4c9" />

**After:**
<img width="589" height="145" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/3f1a8d25-783a-4600-b07e-11b547bb326b" />
<img width="824" height="271" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/46b37469-5c72-4556-95e2-eaea0824c166" />

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#244917

The SYSCOHADA gross margin is defined on page 330 - 331 of the document [Guide-d-application-du-SYSCOHADA.pdf](https://www.ohada.com/uploads/actualite/3504/Guide-d-application-du-SYSCOHADA.pdf). It is TA (701) - RA (601) +/- RB (6031). TA and RA should always be positive and negative, respectively.

In the report "Profit and Loss (SYSCOHADA)", the line RA is negated. XA then subtracts this value from TA, adding the two values instead of subtracting them.

Steps to reproduce:

1. Create a new company on runbot.
2. In Accounting > Configuration > Settings, set their Fiscal Localization to Ginea - SYSCOHADA for Companies.
3. Make a MISC journal entry.
    1. Set a credit of 110,000,000 on account 701100 and balance it with 411100.
    5. Set a debit of 75,000,000 on account 601100 and balance it with 401100.
    6. Set a credit of 5,000,000 on account 603100 and balance it with 411100.
7. Post the entry.
8. Navigate to Accounting > Reports > Profit and Loss.
9. Set the l10n version, Profit and Loss (SYSCOHADA).
10. Set the current date.
11. See XA = 110 million + 75 million + 5 million = 190 million; this does not match the example given on pg 357 of Guide-d-application-du-SYSCOHADA.pdf, where XA = 40 million.

[opw-5482300](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project.task/project.task/5482300)

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#104736
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#104479

Steps to reproduce the bug

- Create a storable product P1:
  - Tracking: Serial Number
- Log in as Marc Demo
- Create a sales order with 1 unit of P1
- Validate the delivery using serial number SN1
- Log in as Mitchell Admin
- Go to Settings:
  - Manage Users
    - Mitchell Admin
      - Sales: User: own documents only
- Go to the Serial Numbers list view:
  - Try to open SN1

**Problem:**
An access error is triggered:

```
Uh-oh! Looks like you have stumbled upon some top-secret records.

Sorry, Mitchell Admin (id=2) doesn't have 'read' access to:
- Sales Order Line, S00025 - P1 (Deco Addict) (sale.order.line: 51)

Blame the following rules:
- Personal Order Lines
```

When clicking on SN1, the `stock.lot` form view.
it's contains the field "sale_order_count", which is a computed field that needs to access all `sale.order` records using the serial number in order to compute the count.

Since Mitchell Admin is restricted to his own sales orders only, an access error is raised during the computation.

There is also a many2many view widget that triggers an access errors. This widget can be removed since the smart button is now available. The widget has already been removed in v19.

**Solution:**
In this view, any stock user, admin or not, must be able to see how many sales orders use a given serial number, regardless of whether those sales orders belong to them or not.

opw-5400731

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#244570

The "Not Sent" filter in Payments list view was not returning the expected records. This was due to an incorrect domain condition in the search view.

This commit updates the filter logic to properly identify payments that haven't been processed or sent, ensuring the filter displays the correct records to the user.

**Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:**
This PR fixes a bug in the "Not Sent" search filter within the Payment views (Account Payments). Currently, the filter fails to accurately identify and display records that have not been sent, leading to an empty or incorrect list of results regardless of the sending payment's actual status.

**Current behavior before PR:**
When a user applies the "Not Sent" filter in the Payments list view (including both Customer and Vendor payments), the system returns incorrect records or no records at all. This is caused by an inconsistent domain definition that doesn't align with the internal field tracking the "sent" status of the payment.

**Desired behavior after PR is merged:**
The "Not Sent" filter will correctly filter the list to show only those payments where the "Sent" status is not True. This will provide users with an accurate view of pending actions for both Customer and Vendor payments, ensuring consistency across the accounting module.

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Navigate to the Accounting (or Invoicing) module.
2. Go to Vendors > Payments or Customers > Payments (the issue is global).
3. Ensure there are several payments in the list, some marked as "Sent" and others not yet sent.
4. Click on the Filters dropdown menu in the search bar.
5. Select the "Not Sent" filter.
6. Observe the results: Notice that the list either becomes empty or continues to show records that do not match the "Not Sent" criteria, failing to filter the data correctly.

**video**
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NTKQ1tHWyZWfs3CPolfDTOMrqaDD9OcN/view
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#245487

### 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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#245314
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#243828

Server actions that were standalone (not a child) and embedded onto a documents folder 
cannot be executed anymore when they are linked to a parent action.
Before saas-18.3, the embedded child action would still be in the documents' 
`available_embedded_actions`, and couldn't be removed, such that a fix was necessary.

From saas-18.3 onwards, children embedded actions are no longer visible.

As this precise case wasn't explicitly tested, we continue the FW-port with the (adapted) test.
Furthermore, we add a garbage collection of the embedded actions for children actions, as they cannot be
executed anymore. 

Initial FIX:
### ISSUE

Certain embedded actions inside a folder may not appear in the folder’s server actions list (accessible via the gear icon), making them impossible to find or delete through the interface.

This occurs because documents.document.get_documents_actions applies overly broad filtering that removes all child server actions, regardless of whether they are embedded in the folder.

As a result, if two embedded actions are created in a folder and one is later set as a child of the other, the embedded child action disappears from the visible list but remains embedded in the folder, leaving no way to remove it from the UI.

### SOLUTION

The method has been updated to exclude only non-embedded child actions.
Embedded child actions are now preserved and correctly displayed in the folder’s actions list, allowing them to be managed and deleted as expected.

opw-5213881

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#101527
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#100395

*= co, ec, kr, tw, zm

Currently, the `Other Expense(expense_other)` account type, introduced in 
saas-18.3, is missing from the Balance Sheet reports of certain `localizations`, 
even though it's correctly implemented in the standard reports.

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install the `l10n_co_reports` and `accountant` modules.
- Switch to `CO company `and navigate to Accounting > Reporting > Balance Sheet.
- Ensure the `report` smart button is set to `Balance Sheet (CO)`.
- Equity > Previous Years Unallocated Earnings and click the `info icon`.
- Observe the formula of `balance_domain`.

**Observation:**
The formula does not include the `expense_other` account type.

**Root Cause:**
After PR [1], at [2] `expense_other` was added to the Previous Years Unallocated 
Earnings balance domain only in the main `account_reports` module. The 
corresponding localization reports mentioned above were not updated 
accordingly, resulting in incomplete Balance Sheet formulas.

**Fix:**
This commit updates the Balance Sheet report and includes the `expense_other` 
account type in the Previous Years Unallocated Earnings balance domain, 
aligning them with the standard reports.

[1]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/101591

[2]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/316a5965e5fae83bd7d901929160c87eb28d13cf/account_reports/data/balance_sheet.xml#L205

opw-5491639

### Steps to reproduce:

- In the settings enable: Batch, Wave & Cluster transfers
- Inventory > Configuration > > Warehouse Management > Operation types
- Enable Auto-batches, Batch grouping by partner on Delivery orders
- Create and confirm a delivery for 2 units of a storable product that you do not have in stock.
- Change the quantity of the move to 1 unit
#### > The delivery is not auto-batched

### Expected behavior:

As the delivery becomes ready a batch transfer containing your delivery should be created. This is by the way what happens if you had at least 1 unit in stock when you confirm the deliver.

### Cause of the issue:

The auto-batching is suppose to be applied on assigned pickings via the `_find_auto_batch` method:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/604d07ab324caa5f3aa6f3baa9902c2137ea24db/addons/stock_picking_batch/models/stock_picking.py#L194-L198 That being said a picking is only batchable if it is Ready hence his state is 'assigned'. Now, the issue is that the `_find_auto_batch` is only callable in two places in our workflow:
First at confirmation:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/604d07ab324caa5f3aa6f3baa9902c2137ea24db/addons/stock_picking_batch/models/stock_picking.py#L138-L142 Which will fail in our case but wokrs in the use case where you have at least one unit in stock since the delivery is respectively not "assigned" or "assigned" at this point. And, else, wehn the sate of a move of the delivery is assigned:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/604d07ab324caa5f3aa6f3baa9902c2137ea24db/addons/stock_picking_batch/models/stock_move.py#L30-L38 Now, the only issue with this call is that the picking becomes assigned if a move is partially assigned:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/604d07ab324caa5f3aa6f3baa9902c2137ea24db/addons/stock/models/stock_picking.py#L841-L845 But since the move is not "assigned" but only "partially_vailable" this will not trigger a call of the `_find_auto_batch`.

opw-5441718

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#245542