Steps to reproduce on runbot
------------------
Select a product with several variants and a Bill of Materials
(e.g. Stool).

Change the variants order so that their ids are not ordered, this can
be done by modifying the default_code for example (e.g. Internal
Reference for variant "Color: Green" set to "A").

When accessing the BoM report, you won’t be able to switch to one of
the possible variants (in the example the Dark Blue variant).

Why it is happening
------------------
The default variant to be displayed when opening the report is selected
in the backend using the product_variant_id field. This field is
computed as the first element in product_variant_ids as they are
ordered in the model.

We then send this variant’s information to the frontend and a
dictionary containing every variant (key= id and value = display_name).
In the serialization process, the object is reordered based on the
keys. Thus, if the variants were not ordered based on their ids in
python, the order will change.

The displayed variant is correct as it has been passed directly but the
frontend also computes the currentVariant attribute. This is computed
as the first element in the dictionary but in this case, it is not the
one that has been selected in the backend, as the order changed.

As a result, you see the report for a variant A but the frontend
considers you are on the report for variant B so you cannot switch to
variant B as you are supposed to be already on it.

The fix
------------------
I propose to use the explicitly passed id as the currentVariantId.

opw-5409493

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#247851
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#241603

Steps to reproduce:
1. Create a storable product with tracking set to 'By Quantity'.
2. Update the Quantity on Hand (e.g., 100 units).
3. Change the product tracking to 'By Serial Number'.
4. Create a Repair Order for this product.
5. Add a line, select a specific Serial Number, and click Save.
6. Observe that the serial number disappears.

Cause:
When reserving stock that was originally created as 'Generic' (no serial), the `_prepare_move_line_vals` method returns `lot_id=False`. The repair view uses `_compute_lot_ids` to display selected lots, which filters out any move lines where `lot_id` is False. This causes the new line to be effectively invisible to the UI immediately after creation.

Solution:
In the `_set_lot_ids` inverse method, explicitly force the `lot_id` into the create values dictionary (`move_line_vals`). This ensures that even if Odoo reserves generic stock, the resulting move line is born with the correct Serial Number identity, keeping it visible and valid.

opw-5156267

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#247885
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#247150

*: payment{,_adyen,_mercado_pago,_stripe}

### Issue:
The payment in some payment providers are failing to due setting
currency decimals.

#### Steps to reproduce:
1- In USD currency form in developer mode, set the rounding factor
   to `0.001000`, so we have 3 decimal places.
2- From `Decimal Accuracy` set Price Unit to 4 digits.
3- Refresh the page.
4- Create a SO and add a line. Set the price to `200.7647`.
5- Refresh the page again and generate a payment link.
6- Pay through Adyen. As you see payments fail.

### Cause and Fix:
This issue is the same as https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/245059. That fix only focused on Stripe, however, the same issue is reproducible on other providers e.g. `Adyen`. In order to avoid the same issue, we can have a general fix to round down all payment transaction amounts to currency's minor unit in `_validate_amount_and_currency`.

---

There is another issue in Mercado Pago which the if currency is not one of these currencies then it will not be sent to provider rounded:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/035b701cbf7bd654f56f07244e606e4038c4115a/addons/payment_mercado_pago/const.py#L39-L43

Mercado Pago rounds **up** in these cases, which will cause mismatch in `_validate_amount_and_currency`.

opw-5871470

This PR improves payment move synchronization and fixes an error that is caused while changing amount of a Payment that has multiple liquidity lines.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Create payment with x amount and validate it.
2. Open the payment journal entry.
3. Reset to draft and update the liquidity line amount from x to (x - y)
4. Create another liquidity line with amount y to balance entry and post it.
5. Draft the payment and try to update the amount.

A traceback will appear. `ValueError: Expected singleton`

Cause:
The lines for payment JE are prepared for the case assuming that there will be only 1 liquidity line, but since we have more than 1, we get a Singleton error.

Description of changes made:
While preparing values for move in `synchronize_to_moves()` check for multiple liquidity lines and append all values to write.
Further, the `_prepare_move_line_default_vals()` is also improved in order to manage different type of move lines individually.

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#246675

Occasionally the test_kardex_report test fails:

```
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/data/build/enterprise/l10n_pe_reports_stock/tests/test_ple_kardex_report.py", line 126, in test_kardex_report
    self.assertSequenceEqual(
AssertionError: Sequences differ: ['M1|[18 chars]|1||02/01/2024|01|FBILL202401|0002|02|product_[313 chars], ''] != ['M1|[18 chars]|1||01/01/2024|01|FBILL202401|0001|02|product_[313 chars], '']

First differing element 0:
'M1|0[17 chars]|1||02/01/2024|01|FBILL202401|0002|02|product_[21 chars]0|1|'
'M1|0[17 chars]|1||01/01/2024|01|FBILL202401|0001|02|product_[21 chars]0|1|'

- ['M1|0000|1|99|FURN9999|1||02/01/2024|01|FBILL202401|0002|02|product_order_no|NIU|3.00|0.00|1|',
?                             ^                           ^

+ ['M1|0000|1|99|FURN9999|1||01/01/2024|01|FBILL202401|0001|02|product_order_no|NIU|3.00|0.00|1|',
?                             ^                           ^
```

The issue was reproducible locally by disabling nested loop joins: `self.env.cr.execute("SET LOCAL enable_nestloop = off")` to nudge Postgres to use a different join strategy.

The test creates a PO that is picked and invoiced in two steps (first quantity 3, then the remaining 2). As a result, the `stock.valuation.layer` ends up being linked to two `account.move.line`s because the join goes through the same `purchase_order_line`. So it will appear twice in the `_get_ple_reports_data()` query. A `DISTINCT
ON (stock_valuation_layer.id)` was already there with the goal of picking one of them. Which one depends on the order, but it's not deterministic: the valuation layer's `id`, `product_id`, and `create_date` will all be the same.

This commit makes the behavior deterministic by sorting on PO line and SO line ids.

runbot-error-238888

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#107047