Currently, it is possible to set a DateV identifier on a partner even if it is already assigned to an archived partner. This leads to duplicate identifiers if the archived partner is later unarchived.

###  **Steps to reproduce:**
1) Install **l10n_de_reports, Contacts** App with Demo Data. 
2) Switch to a **DE company**.
3) Create a contact 'Test-A' and set `'DateV Vendor' to 123456789` in the **Accounting Section**. 
4) Archive 'Test-A'.
5) Create 'Test-B' and set `'DateV Vendor' to 123456789`. 
6) Unarchive 'Test-A'.

### **Observed Behavior:**
'Test-B' is created successfully. After step 6, both 'Test-A' and 'Test-B' are active with the same DateV identifier.

### **Expected Behavior:**
A validation error should be raised when trying to save 'Test-B', stating that the identifier is already defined.

### **Root Cause:**
Since [this commit](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/733c4ba1fd5558891ffdbc67066c3a3a5938e2f0), company-dependent fields are stored as JSONB in the database. Due to this improvement, the previous SQL constraint (which enforced uniqueness across all records) was removed and replaced with a Python constraint.

However, the new Python constraint utilizes `search_count`, which by default filters out archived records (`active=False`). This allows the reuse of identifiers belonging to archived partners, breaking the uniqueness requirement that existed in previous versions.

Fix:
Update the `_check_datev_identifier` and `_check_datev_identifier_customer` constraints to use `with_context(active_test=False)`. This ensures that the uniqueness check considers all partners, including archived ones.

opw-5474106

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#106146

## Short functional explanation of the error
In Timesheets, when reporting by billing time, if we try to group by employee, an error occurs.

## Reproduction Steps
1. Go to Timesheets.
2. Click on the Reporting tab > By Billing type.
3. Click on the search bar and click on Employee under the Group By section.

### Expected behavior
A report shows the different hours worked on billing time for each employee.

### Unexpected behavior
An error occurs:
```TypeError: data.forEach is not a function```

## Origin of the issue
When retrieving the data to show in the report after having grouped
it by employee, this piece of code is called:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/42102423069c2cebbc01eb4d1d8f9b6215358639/sale_timesheet_enterprise/static/src/views/timesheet_analysis_pivot/timesheet_analysis_pivot_model.js#L23-L36
However, the variable (data) on which we perform the forEach isn't
an array: it's an object of structure:
```
{ "group": { "rowValues": [], "colValues": [] }, "rowGroupBy": [ "employee_id" ], "colGroupBy": [], "subGroupIndex": 2, "subGroups": [ { "employee_id": [ 1, "Administrator" ], "__extra_domain": [ [ "employee_id", "=", 1 ] ], "unit_amount:sum": 0, "__count": 2, "__domain": [ "&", [ "project_id", "!=", false ], [ "employee_id", "=", 1 ] ] } ] }
```
on which we can't perform a forEach. The data we want to access to
use in the report is actually the `subGroups` element of data.

__
opw-5864458

*: account_asset, sale_lazada

Since [19.0](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/217277#issue-3198442339), read access rights are checks on comodels when trying to read the value of a many2many fields you have read acccess to. This change highlight numerous access right issues in basic flows for users with minimal access.

Here is a list of examples (each performed with every other access rights disabled):
- With a `stock user`, open the delivery list or form view
 #### > Access error
- With a `purchase user` create and confirm a PO > Upload Bill
####  > the Bill will be created but an access error will prevent the draft bill from opening.
- With a `sale user` create and confrim an SO > Create invoice
####  > the invoice will be created but an access error will prevent the draft invoice from opening.

## Solutions:

### Use case: Open an invoice (`acount.move`) linked to one of your SO/PO with a basic `sale`/`purchase` user:

1) For basic `sale` and `purchase` users to be able to open the `account.move` Form on which they have read, update, create, delete access rights, it is necessary for the `payment_count` to be compute sudo since it is used in the view:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/4ea42f8b16a8619cced4255f5bba8de6427345b7/addons/account/views/account_move_views.xml#L859 And these users do not have the read access of the `account.payment` model.

Similarily the `_compute_asset_ids` needs to be compute sudo because it relies on the related `asset_ids` of `account.move.line`s or on values of these `account.asset`s for which the users shoud not have read access: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/06cf3f2b6663c61f1fcc158678dfb1fa43ece4e1/account_asset/models/account_move.py#L27-L30 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/06cf3f2b6663c61f1fcc158678dfb1fa43ece4e1/account_asset/models/account_move.py#L317-L323 and the `asset_ids`, `count_asset`, `asset_id_display_name` and `draft_asset_exists` are all used in the view.

#### Note for master:

IMO, the `asset_ids` field of the `account.move` model should probably be in a separate compute to not be computed in sudo and removed from the views as it is currently used only to determine if there is or not `asset_ids`. An information that is provided by the `count_asset`. E.G. here:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/06cf3f2b6663c61f1fcc158678dfb1fa43ece4e1/account_asset/views/account_move_views.xml#L10 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/06cf3f2b6663c61f1fcc158678dfb1fa43ece4e1/account_asset/views/account_move_views.xml#L35-L40 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/06cf3f2b6663c61f1fcc158678dfb1fa43ece4e1/account_asset/views/account_move_views.xml#L44-L52

2) For basic `purchase` users to open the invoice linked to one of their PO, it is necessary that the `sale_order_count` is computed in sudo as they do not have access to the related `sale_line_ids` field and the field is used in the `account.move` form:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/4ea42f8b16a8619cced4255f5bba8de6427345b7/addons/sale/models/account_move.py#L46-L49 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/4ea42f8b16a8619cced4255f5bba8de6427345b7/addons/sale/views/account_views.xml#L53

### Use case: Open a `stock.picking` views as basic stock user:

3) The basic `stock` users have a read access on the `delivery.carrier` model and should also on the related `delivery.zip.prefix` and `delivery.price.rule` models. First as it make sense functionally but also as it currently blocks them on basic flows. For instance basic stock users can not open the `stock.picking` list or form view as the `carrier_id` is part of these view:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/4ea42f8b16a8619cced4255f5bba8de6427345b7/addons/stock_delivery/views/delivery_view.xml#L125-L132 This is problematic as this field has a domain relying on the related `allowed_carrier_ids` field:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/93fa6d9fff63534cfa9251e21fc82797d8b83468/addons/stock_delivery/models/stock_picking.py#L23-L24 As such, when the view is opened, the related field needs to be read. However, the `_compute_allowed_carrier_ids` fails if you do not have read access rights on the `delivery.zip.prefix` model: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/93fa6d9fff63534cfa9251e21fc82797d8b83468/addons/delivery/models/delivery_carrier.py#L198 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/93fa6d9fff63534cfa9251e21fc82797d8b83468/addons/delivery/models/delivery_carrier.py#L70-L72 Similarily `delivery.price.rule` model should be readable for `stock` users in order to be able to get be able to rely on the `price_rule_ids` when necessary such as here:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/93fa6d9fff63534cfa9251e21fc82797d8b83468/addons/delivery/models/delivery_carrier.py#L492-L496

opw-5461135
opw-5417749

## [REF] hr_contract_salary{,_payroll}: Add hr_version_context ctx mngr

Description
-----------
Getting an `hr.version` from an `offer` during simulation is done in
a savepoint, preceded and followed with flushing of the environment
and some post-cleanup. This is verbose and error-prone, as it's done
at each call site of `hr.contract.salary.offer._get_version` and
`hr.version._generate_salary_simulation_payslip` (or any other
future method that may require such a savepoint). These methods have a
comment that mentions *requiring* a savepoint to be called, but
nothing is enforcing it, so a bug due to oversight is bound to
happen. Context keys are also injected a bit everywhere like
`salary_simulation` and `tracking_disable`, without much consistency,
and adding to the visual clutter.

This commit introduces a little context manager called
`hr_version_context` that manages the creation of the savepoint, the
setup and teardown necessary, and the setting of the keys in the
context.
It's accompanied by a decorator `@requires_hr_version_context` that
will fail if the caller didn't use `hr_version_context` before
invoking the marked method.

This ensures:

- Correct creation of the savepoint and its related pre-/post-operations
- Apply context keys consistently
- Ensure methods that require such setup *cannot* be called without it.


## [PERF] {,l10n_be_}hr_contract_salary: speed up salary simulation updates

Description
-----------
Many of the methods used to recompute the benefits and salary on the
salary configurator were creating the necessary context for working
with a simulated employee version (savepoint / flushing /
invalidation) at each level in the method override hierarchy. This
led to unnecessary overhead that had a negative performance impact.

To remedy this, this commit extracts the overridable parts of the
method into their own private versions. Only the private version
should be overridden to modify the behavior, while the public method
is kept for setting up the necessary context. This allows the
setup/teardown of the context only once per call of the method and
its potential parent overridden methods.

Benchmark
---------
On a staging database, opening the salary configurator and clicking
on 'Simulation' when selecting a new car took:

| Timings for        | Before | After  | Speed up |
|--------------------|--------|--------|----------|
| `onchange_benefit` | ~750ms | ~160ms | 4.6x     |
| `update_salary`    | 2.3s   | 1.1s   | 1.9x     |

Bug reproduction: When version >= 19.0, install Kenya payroll and accounting, create payslip for one of the Kenyan employee -> validate the payslip -> Reporting: P9 Report in payroll app -> Create new tax deduction card -> populate employees -> in the inside of the card: select employees and click to generate pdf -> it will not be generated 

Bug cause:
    1 - In cron parameters, context passed wrongly, it should take place in the clickable parameters
    2 - After saas-18.4 in the migration, employee.l10n_ke_pin field is removed but this field still takes place in l10n_ke_tax_reduction_card_templates.xml and it gets error when the user clicks to generate PDF.

Bug solution:
    1 - Fixing cron parameter passing
    2 - Removing PIN of employee field from P9 report since it is not available anymore.

Testing: Unit test is written to check PDF's are generated for sure.
    1 - Creating Kenya company, employees
    2 - Creating payslip for employees and validate them
    3 - Creating tax deduction card and generate declarations
    4 - Checking PDF's are created

task - 5395267