1. Create a contact (with minimal details).
2. Create a customer invoice for that contact **last month** with `quantity = 300`.
3. Create a credit note for that invoice **this month**.
4. Create another customer invoice for the same contact **this month** with `quantity = 100`.

In the FAIA report (XML), within the General Ledger section, the partner is incorrectly classified as a supplier instead of a customer.

In the method _saft_fill_report_partner_ledger_values from account_saft, he partner type is determined based on whether the balance is negative.

However, a negative balance can result from a credit note, where the partner is still a customer and not a supplier. Furthermore, a partner can be both a supplier and a customer.

This commit allows a partner to be both a customer and a supplier. If both receivable and payable are 0 we set the partner type to customer to keep the behavior from e9640caf29e967fe7d8c6fe303b5a8d7a866437e

opw-5360924

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#105893
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#100749

### Issue:
The annual VAT report could not be legally validated because some mandatory parent fields were missing in the XML export

### Cause:
This PR add some required fields:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/93357
However, for file validation, the following parent fields are mandatory if certain child fields are present:
```
- Field 129: Field 129 is mandatory if one of the following fields is filled : 771, 971, 772, 972, 774, 773, 973, 124, 128, 197
- Field 137: Field 137 is mandatory if one of the following fields is filled : 776, 976, 777, 977, 778, 978, 134, 136, 198
- Field 145: Field 145 is mandatory if one of the following fields is filled: 781, 981, 782, 982, 783, 983, 142, 144, 199
- Field 163: Field 163 is mandatory if one of the following fields is filled : 791, 991, 793, 993, 797, 795, 995, 158, 162, 200
- Field 175: Field 175 is mandatory if one of the following fields is filled: 396, 162
```
164 and 165 are also added according to this assertion: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/c93388741182f1873054557a6e7767186674fafa/l10n_lu_reports/models/l10n_lu_annual_tax_report.py#L167-L171

### Note:
This PR is related to the 18.0 PR: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/104785
It also fix issues in `_add_yearly_fields()` because the validation consider form as float instead of dict

### Steps to reproduce:
- Install `l10n_lu_reports` and switch to LU company
- Open the Tax Report `Annual VAT Declaration`
- Export the XML
- Notice that codes 396, 394 149, and 153 are present, but 129, 137, 145, 163 and 175 are missing

opw-5119920

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#106457
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#105143

Sending a WhatsApp message to a blacklisted number fails to be blocked if the recipient's phone number country differs from the sender company's country.

### Steps to reproduce

1. Configure a WhatsApp account.
2. Set the Company's country to Germany (+49).
3. Create a Contact with a Belgian phone number (e.g. +32456001122).
4. Send a template message to this contact.
5. Have the contact reply with "STOP" to opt-out (this correctly adds +32456001122 to the blacklist).
6. Send another message to the contact.
   - Expected: The message is blocked.
   - Actual: The message is sent successfully.

### Root cause

The blacklist search logic relies on implicit phone number sanitization which behaves incorrectly for international numbers without a `+` prefix.

1. `whatsapp.message` stores numbers as `CountryCode + NationalNumber` without a `+` (e.g. "32456001122").
2. `phone.blacklist` stores numbers in E.164 format with a `+` (e.g. "+32456001122").
3. When searching `phone.blacklist` with "32456001122", the system interprets it as a local number for the Company's country (Germany) because of the missing `+`.
4. It reformats the search term to German E.164 ("+4932456001122").
5. The query fails to match the actual blacklisted number ("+32456001122"), allowing the message to pass.

### Fix

Explicitly prepend a `+` to the recipient's number before searching the blacklist. This forces the validation logic to parse the number as international (E.164), bypassing the company-country bias and ensuring the search term matches the stored blacklisted number.

opw-5401789

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#106395
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#104556

**Issue**
When leaving the barcode MRP operation, `post_barcode_process()` may incorrectly update the move quantities.

**Steps to reproduce**
- Create a product with a BOM using a component with qty 6.
- Create an MO producing qty 1.
- Open the Barcode app > Manufacturing > open the MO (remove “MO Ready” filter if needed).
- Click “+1”.
- Edit the component qty from 6 to 3.
- Exit the operation.
- Re-enter the operation.
-> The component shows 3/3 instead of 3/3 and 0/3.

**Cause**
On exit, `_onExit`:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/776848dc4e29d07a027847fde46a59f84dd35f56/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_picking_model.js#L1489
calls `post_barcode_process()`, which triggers `split_uncompleted_moves`:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/776848dc4e29d07a027847fde46a59f84dd35f56/stock_barcode/models/stock_move.py#L16
correctly creating a `stock.move.line` with qty 3.

However, `_truncate_overreserved_moves`:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/776848dc4e29d07a027847fde46a59f84dd35f56/stock_barcode/models/stock_move.py#L40
then reduces the move quantity to `max_reserved_qty = 3` and unreserves the remaining 3 units:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/776848dc4e29d07a027847fde46a59f84dd35f56/stock_barcode/models/stock_move.py#L49

This happens because the newly created move line is initialized with `reserved_uom_qty = 0`:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/776848dc4e29d07a027847fde46a59f84dd35f56/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_picking_model.js#L1256
leading to `max_reserved_qty = quantity_done = 3 < move.quantity = 6`, while `move.product_uom_qty` is still 6.

opw-5166763

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#104199
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#100314

The `_get_deferred_entries_method` checks for expense/income account conflicts using all line accounts, not just lines with deferred dates. This causes a false positive error when posting misc entries with both expense and revenue accounts but no deferred dates configured.

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/3e6d2f3ca7e2d4e940f2c2022f816202c72cbd1b/account_accountant/models/account_move.py#L150-L151

Steps To Reproduce:
1. Go to Settings → Accounting and set different "Generate Entries" methods for deferred expenses "On bill validation" and deferred revenues "Manually & Grouped".
2. Go to Accounting Dashboard and create a new Miscellaneous Operation.
3. Create 2 journal items: one with an expense account and one with a revenue account (neither configured for deferred entries).
4. Try to post the entry.
5. Error appears: "Having different deferred entries generation methods for expenses and revenues is not supported..."

The validation should only apply when lines actually have deferred dates set, not for all misc entries with mixed account types.

Commit that caused the issue:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/3e6d2f3ca7e2d4e940f2c2022f816202c72cbd1b

Ticket [link](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project.task/5486114)
opw-5486114

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#104476

For old databases that were created before 16.0, existing sign request might not have a communication company set.

Following commit odoo/enterprise@6b505a34f7bdee89c155eed7507296d5acfd8a9b trying to open such sign request will result in a crash:

```
Traceback:
  ...
  File "/data/build/odoo/enterprise/saas-18.3/sign/controllers/main.py", line 354, in get_document
    context = self.get_document_qweb_context(request_id, token)
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/data/build/odoo/enterprise/saas-18.3/sign/controllers/main.py", line 88, in get_document_qweb_context
    date_format = posix_to_ldml(lang.date_format, locale=locale)
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/data/build/odoo/odoo/saas-18.3/odoo/tools/misc.py", line 606, in posix_to_ldml
    for c in fmt:
TypeError: 'bool' object is not iterable
```

This commit fallback to the create user's company to determine the date language when there is not communication company set.

no-task (from feedback pad)

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#87526

Link to Avalara (Avatax) documentation:
https://developer.avalara.com/api-reference/avatax/rest/v2/models/LineItemModel/

Expected Behaviour:
The itemCode sent to the AvaTax API should be 50 characters or fewer
to comply with Avalara's field length constraints.

Actual Behaviour before the Fix:
When an itemCode exceeded 50 characters, the system attempted to send
the request as-is. This resulted in the AvaTax API returning an error,
causing the transaction or tax calculation to fail.

Behaviour with the Fix:
The system now ensures that the itemCode adheres to the 50-character
limit before the API call is made, by trancating the code to the
first 50 characters if it exceeds 50 characters. This prevents API
rejection and ensures successful tax processing for items with
long identifiers.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Create or select a product/item with a reference (or barcode if
   using UPC) longer than 50 characters.
2. Trigger an action that calculates tax via the AvaTax
   integration (e.g., creating an invoice or updating a line item).
3. Observe the API response.

- Before fix: API returns a validation error regarding the
  itemCode length.
- After fix: Request is successful as the itemCode is
  properly handled/validated.

opw-5406451

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#105017