Currently, an error occurs when a user tries to generate lots while providing a lot number.

**Steps to replicate:**
- Install purchase (without demo).
- Create a product `test`.
- Install stock and turn on `Lots and Serial Numbers`
- Open the product `test` and turn on `Track Inventory` `by Lots`.
- Open Receipts > add the product `test`> give demand as 3 > and go to its form view using view button.
- Click `Generate Lots` > type `lot1` in `First lot Number` > Generate > Error-1
- Click `Generate Lots` > type 0 in Quantity received > Generate > Error-2.

**Error-1:**
```
  File '/home/odoo/odoo18/community/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py', line 1026, in action_generate_lot_line_vals
    if (first_lot and first_lot == product.lot_sequence_id.get_next_char(first_number)):
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File '/home/odoo/odoo18/community/odoo/addons/base/models/ir_sequence.py', line 237, in get_next_char
    interpolated_prefix, interpolated_suffix = self._get_prefix_suffix()
                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File '/home/odoo/odoo18/community/odoo/addons/base/models/ir_sequence.py', line 227, in _get_prefix_suffix
    self.ensure_one()
  File '/home/odoo/odoo18/community/odoo/orm/models.py', line 5640, in ensure_one
    raise ValueError('Expected singleton: %s' % self)
ValueError: Expected singleton: ir.sequence()
```

**Error-2:**
```
  File '/home/odoo/odoo18/community/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py', line 1025, in action_generate_lot_line_vals
    first_number = product.lot_sequence_id.number_next_actual - product.lot_sequence_id.number_increment
                   ^^^^^^^
UnboundLocalError: cannot access local variable 'product' where it is not associated with a value
```
---
**Cause:**
- Both errors originated through a recent [PR].

**Error-1 (Expected singleton: ir.sequence()):**
- As the product was already created before Inventory was installed, the `lot_sequence_id` was empty. (Note:`lot_sequence_id` field has a default value , but default value
       assignment triggers only during the record creation,  any records created
       before stock is installed will not be assigned any value for
      `lot_sequence_id`.)

- As no `lot_sequence_id` is assigned to `test` product the line [1] calls `get_next_char()` on an empty recordset which further calls `_get_prefix_suffix()` [2] and raises singletonerror from [here].

**Error-2 (UnboundLocalError: cannot access local variable 'product'):**
- As the `Received Quantity` was given 0, the `count` argument is received as 0 and as a result the `lot_qties` [3] and `lot_names` [4] are received as empty lists.
- This causes their [zip] to be empty list too and the loop never runs, so assignment to [product] variable never happens and causes the error to occur from here [5].
---
**Solution:**

**Error-1:**
- Now we perform write on `product.lot_sequence_id` only if it exists, otherwise we skip it.

**Error-2:**
- Moved the static assignment of variable `product` and `location_dest_id` outside the loop, this will also prevent the browse being called multiple times for browsing the same record.

[PR]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/240368

[1]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/7ab52c1675b9764d11454c7b5216064bec4628f8/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1026

[2]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/7ab52c1675b9764d11454c7b5216064bec4628f8/odoo/addons/base/models/ir_sequence.py#L237

[here]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/7ab52c1675b9764d11454c7b5216064bec4628f8/odoo/addons/base/models/ir_sequence.py#L227

[3]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/7ab52c1675b9764d11454c7b5216064bec4628f8/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L989

[4]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/7ab52c1675b9764d11454c7b5216064bec4628f8/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L994

[zip]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/7ab52c1675b9764d11454c7b5216064bec4628f8/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1000

[product]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/7ab52c1675b9764d11454c7b5216064bec4628f8/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1004

[5]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/7ab52c1675b9764d11454c7b5216064bec4628f8/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1025

sentry-7254849206,7265844194
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#248846

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install Expenses
- Activate "Incoming Emails" in the settings
- Configure the expense Alias
- Configure an "Incoming Mail Server"

- Create a Branch for a company
- Create a User:
  * Email Address: [an existing email address]
  * Allowed Companies: [the parent company + the branch company]
  * Default Company: [the branch company]
  * User Types: Internal User
- Create an employee for the user in the parent company

- From the email address, send a PDF to the expense alias

**Issue:**
The expense is not created in the database due to a UserError: "Incompatible companies on records".

**Cause:**
When the email is received and treated, the system tries to create an expense.
From the email address, it retrieves an employee that is linked to the expense.
For the company of the expense, if a user is linked to the employee, it takes the default company of the user.
Otherwise, it takes the company of the employee.
In this case, the company set on the expense is the default company of the user (i.e. the branch company) and the employee set on the expense belongs to the parent company ; which triggers the UserError during the company check.

**Solution:**
Always use the company of the employee, even if there is a user linked to the employee.

opw-5346809




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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#253313
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#249415

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install `l10n_de, website_sale and appointment` modules.
- Create a website for the `DE company` and make it default.
 (simply place it first in the sequence.)
- From settings enable `Automatic Invoice` and `Discounts, Loyalty & Gift Card`.
- Go to the appointment module and create a new appointment for the DE company.
- In the options tab, enable `Up-front payment` and publish it.
- Create a new gift card program and generate a gift card to test (should cover the entire cost of the appointment booking).
- Now go to an Incognito tab, go to the appointment, and book the currently created appointment. When confirming the order, use the gift card and then confirm the order.

**Issue:**
- When you confirm the order, an access error occurs.

**Root cause:**
- Since automatic invoicing is enabled, at [1] the method
  `get_product_accounts` is called for the DE company.
  Inside this method at [2], self.sudo(False) is used, which removes the
  elevated access rights. As a result, the `Public product template` record
  rule is triggered, and because the public user cannot access the product,
  an AccessError is raised.
- In this [commit], we can see that `sudo(False)` was added when coming from
  the stock flow because the stock valuation layer was being created as sudo.

**Solution:**
- Instead of adding `sudo(False)` in **l10n_de**, we can apply `sudo(False)`
  at the point where the **stock valuation layer** is created using `sudo()`.

[1]https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/9d5d5c08f950d32bf61c2186181e8eddad9036da/addons/account/models/account_move_line.py#L603-L604
[2]https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/9d5d5c08f950d32bf61c2186181e8eddad9036da/addons/l10n_de/models/datev.py#L20

[commit]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/236931/changes/0919774791bb998954b870798c88843f999f2de4

opw-5483472
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#253131
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#246920

…lues landed cost sbc

**Problem:**
account move line created from a landed cost on a  subcontracted 
receipt do not take into account already out quantity.

**Steps to reproduce:**
- create a tracked product with avco auto category
- create a subcontracted bom for this product with no comp
- create and confirm a PO for 10 unit of this product 
with the same partner as the subcontractor of the bom
- validate the receipt
- create and validate a delivery for 4 unit of your product
- navigate to inventory/operations/adjustments/landed costs
- create a new landed cost
- select the receipt from the PO
- add a landed cost of 10$ and validate
- select the valuation smart button
- a 6$ svl was created (which is correct because 6 out 10 products
of the receipt are still in stock)
- click on the book widget to open the account move view

**Current behavior:**
Only two account move lines were created both with a value 
of 10
One crediting sotck interim received
On debiting stock valuation

**Expected behavior:**
4 extra account move lines (all with a value of 4) should have been 
created to compensate the out quantity like it is the case for 
non subcontracted product.
One debiting stock interim delivered
One crediting stock valuation 
One debiting expenses
One crediting stock interim delivered

**Cause of the issue:**
_is_in() will return false for the move of a subcontracted receipt
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/7462ec423e8b106a5175a71ac009176d16cdf225/addons/stock_landed_costs/models/stock_landed_cost.py#L185
This is wanted and happens because _should_be_valued()
will return true when called on the subcontracted location
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/7462ec423e8b106a5175a71ac009176d16cdf225/addons/stock_account/models/stock_move.py#L129

As a consequence, qty_out stays 0
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/7462ec423e8b106a5175a71ac009176d16cdf225/addons/stock_landed_costs/models/stock_landed_cost.py#L185-L186
and we do not append the values for the extra amls 
inside _create_account_move_line()
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/7462ec423e8b106a5175a71ac009176d16cdf225/addons/stock_landed_costs/models/stock_landed_cost.py#L465-L466

**fix:**
if we make sure the the adjustment line is linked to the move 
of the MO instead of the move of the receipt, this problem does 
not happen because _is_in() returns true for the move of the MO. 
Also in this case we don't need _get_stock_valuation_layer_ids()
which was introduced by this PR https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/166107
to solve the same issue. 
That is because the move used in button_validate is the move linked
to the adjustment line, which will, after this fix, be the one of 
the MO, so we can directly take its stock valuation layers.

opw-5723126

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#252903
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#248231

steps to reproduce:
-------------------
1. Install Time Off
2. Go to Configuration > Accrual Plans
3. Create an accrual plan:
   * Set the accrued gain time to "At the start of the accrual period"
   * Set the carry-over time to "At the start of the year"
4. Create a milestone:
   * Set the number of accrued days to 1
   * Set the accrual frequency to "monthly" and the carry over to "None.Accrued time reset to 0"
5. Go to Management > Allocations
6. Create an allocation:
   * Set the start date to 2025-01-01
   * Set the accrual plan to the one created above
7. Use future allocations to check accruals

current behavior:
-----------------
- On 2026-01-01 --> accrued days = 1  (correct)
- On 2026-02-01 --> accrued days = 1  (should be 2)
- On 2026-03-01 --> accrued days = 2 (delayed accrual, off by one month) 

cause of the issue:
-------------------
Commit 30c7011 introduced a condition that accrues time off on the carry over date:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/1416aad902a97ce56aaecc2aadc4dd9f7814ee53/addons/hr_holidays/models/hr_leave_allocation.py#L559

This incorrectly evaluates accruals across the carry over period instead of restricting to the current month, causing February accruals to be skipped.

**Reason February accruals are skipped:**
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/dcb072f675c5630327d27d785b86e1ec8e2d442d/addons/hr_holidays/models/hr_leave_allocation.py#L559-L561
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/dcb072f675c5630327d27d785b86e1ec8e2d442d/addons/hr_holidays/models/hr_leave_allocation.py#L541-L544

* After January, the last_executed_carryover_date is set to 2026-01-01.
* Therefore, February uses last_executed_carryover_date = 2026-01-01.
* The condition evaluates as true for February:
```python3
last_executed_carryover_date <= allocation.nextcall <= carryover_period_end
2026-01-01 <= 2026-02-01 <= 2026-02-01
```
As a result, the February accrual is skipped.

**Why it works correctly in March:**
* After February, the last_executed_carryover_date is updated to 2027-01-01.
* March now uses this updated date:
```python3
last_executed_carryover_date <= allocation.nextcall <= carryover_period_end
2027-01-01 <= 2026-03-01 <= 2027-02-01
```
The condition is not satisfied, so accruals are processed correctly.

solution:
----------
Add a condition to check if the loop has already run for the current carryover 
period. This ensures the system avoids applying the carryover twice,
allowing subsequent accruals to process as expected.


opw-5020834

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#253153
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#227646

BUG 1:
-----------

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Install Time Off and Timesheets with demo data.
2. Create a time off for an employee and approve it.
3. Check the related timesheet entry for that employee.
4. Delete the approved time off.
5. Check the timesheet entries again.

**Issue:**
The timesheet entry remains even after the related time off record is deleted.

**Cause:**
Following commit 944c11e, admins can delete [approved time off ](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f6cf0d067e5f30e2b22ea513071cd7c5e3d9f44c/addons/hr_holidays/models/hr_leave.py#L956-L959)records. 
The relationship between the leave and the analytic line (timesheet) did not
have a deletion policy defined. When the leave was [unlinked](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f6cf0d067e5f30e2b22ea513071cd7c5e3d9f44c/addons/hr_holidays/models/hr_leave.py#L961-L964), the analytic
line remained without its parent reference.

**Solution:**
Explicitly remove related timesheet entries before deleting the leave record.


BUG 2:
-----------


Currently, refusing/cancelling a time off record can lead to orphan 
timesheets/duplicated hours (16h instead of 8h) if a public holiday 
exists on the same day.

**Root cause:**
The issue comes from this write method:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/79ff1d63caed2c1058aa338947b9af90ebb6cd20/addons/project_timesheet_holidays/models/hr_leave.py#L128-L130
The method first unlinks the holiday_id from the timesheets
and then attempts to delete them.

However, once the holiday_id is set to False, the timesheets are
no longer linked to the leave. As a result, leave.timesheet_ids becomes empty,
and nothing is deleted. This leads to orphan timesheet records.

When the leave is later refused or cancelled, a new public holiday timesheet
entry is generated (if applicable), resulting in duplicated timesheet entries
for the same day.

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Create a time off for one day and validate it (8h timesheet generated).
2. Create a public holiday for the same day.
3. Observe that leave duration becomes 0, but the timesheet remains.
4. Refuse or cancel the time off.
5. Observe two timesheet entries for the same day (16h total).

opw-5384428





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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#247155

Backport of 0432a982dfea6e68419f137502c018c0a9241181

### Steps to reproduce:

1. In the settings enable: Multi-steps route
2. Put your warehouse in 2-step deliveries
3. Create a kit product:
   - With one component
   - There is one component in the stock
4. Create and confirm a SO with 1 x K
5. Process the pick and ship
6. Return the delivery
7. Set the sol qty to 0

### > Two unexpected pickings are created to put the kit in output

Decreasing the sol quantity to 0 will call the `_action_launch_stock_rule` in order to create and run procurements related to that quantity change. However, the quantity currently handled by other procurements is determined here by the
`_compute_kit_quantities`:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/87e176ad76c9d7b87cd622ae38a8b9a62813b1cb/addons/sale_stock/models/sale_order_line.py#L388 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/87e176ad76c9d7b87cd622ae38a8b9a62813b1cb/addons/sale_mrp/models/sale_order_line.py#L154-L166 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/87e176ad76c9d7b87cd622ae38a8b9a62813b1cb/addons/mrp/models/stock_move.py#L578-L580
Now, the issue is that `_compute_kit_quantities` does not handle move chains properly, as all delivery moves contribute to the `incoming_qty` and all return moves contribute to the `outgoing_qty`. This results in an `incoming_qty` of 1 (for the pick) + 1 (for the ship) and an `outgoing_qty` of 1 (for the 1-step return), that is a `qty_processed` of 1. As a result, the procurement will be generated for a quantity of `0 - 1` (rather than 0):
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/87e176ad76c9d7b87cd622ae38a8b9a62813b1cb/addons/sale_stock/models/sale_order_line.py#L388-L402 which leads to the unexpected picking creations.

opw-6006543

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#253061

To reproduce:
- Register your company on Peppol (even sender).
- Change the VAT on your company (will be done if you choose your document layout).
- Send an invoice on the network 
- => The invoice will be refused by the AP.

The issue is that the EAS and Endpoint are automatically re-computed when you write on the VAT. It causes issues as the UBL will be filled with the values on the partner, resulting in a non-synchronised SBD and UBL, which will result in all new invoices to be in error.

Their only solution would be to revert back the EAS/Endpoint on the partner, which will sometimes be blocked meaning they have to un-register->re-register

Also adapt the query count, as we need to do a search in each compute.

opw-5923552
opw-5924552

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#252902
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#249017

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------------------------
1. Install `hr_appraisal_skills` module
2. Create a new employee and assign at least one skill to the employee
3. Set the Next Appraisal Date to today
4. Go to Scheduled Actions > Appraisal: Run employee appraisal > Run Manually
5. Open the newly created appraisal for the employee

Observation:
-------------------------------------
In the Skills tab, the employee's skills are not populated even though the appraisal is already in the confirmed stage

Issue:
-------------------------------------
When the cron  `_run_employee_appraisal_plans` creates an appraisal, it is created directly in `pending` state via  `create()`. The skill-copying logic only lived in the  `write()` override, which triggers on state transitions from 'new' to 'pending'. Since  `create()` bypasses  `write()`, Employee skills were never copied to cron-created appraisals

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/451dce92a087086fc3d5d5f610626312f32bcd13/hr_appraisal_skills/models/hr_skills.py#L12-L15

Solution:
-------------------------------------
Add a `create()` override to call `_copy_skills_when_confirmed` when an appraisal is created directly in the `pending` state, ensuring employee skills are properly copied.

opw-5491433

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#110013
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#107760

## Issue:
When computing the product tree, the system would use `_bom_find` to find the BoM. However, it's possible to have multiple BoM for the same product, and the user should have chosen which BoM he wants to use. `_bom_find` ignores the user configuration in MPS, and simply select the first (oldest) BoM in the list. This means that the components in the MPS would not be correctly updated.

---

## How to reproduce:


https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/c7e6f4d4-332a-4e2b-a40a-1b831daeb6c8


- Create Products FNS & CMP
- Create BoM for FNS without bom line (V1)
- Create BoM for FNS with CMP in bom lines (V2)
- Add FNS to MPS using bom V2
- Set Forecast Qty of FNS to 10 
- => Indirect Demand Qty for CMP is not shown (because it's 0)

---

## Test Result without fix:
```
2026-03-05 15:00:24,601 52396 INFO oes_test_18.0 odoo.addons.mrp_mps.tests.test_mrp_mps: Starting TestMpsMps.test_indirect_multiple_boms ... 
2026-03-05 15:00:24,742 52396 INFO oes_test_18.0 odoo.addons.mrp_mps.tests.test_mrp_mps: ====================================================================== 
2026-03-05 15:00:24,742 52396 ERROR oes_test_18.0 odoo.addons.mrp_mps.tests.test_mrp_mps: FAIL: TestMpsMps.test_indirect_multiple_boms
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/odoo/Odoo/src/18.0/enterprise/mrp_mps/tests/test_mrp_mps.py", line 1556, in test_indirect_multiple_boms
    self.assertEqual(forecast_cmp['forecast_ids'][0]['indirect_demand_qty'], 10)
AssertionError: 0.0 != 10
 ```

---

OPW-5979738

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#109693

… request

ARCA requires numeric fields such as unit price and quantity to have a maximum of 12 integer digits and 6 decimal places. If these fields are sent with more than 6 decimals, AFIP rejects the invoice with errors like:
`Code 1814: Campo Cmp.Items.Pro_precio_uni invalido. El valor debe tener 12 enteros y 6 decimales como máximo.`

To ensure compliance, values are formatted before sending the request to ARCA.

**Precision rationale**
ARCA WS documentation mentions 4 decimal places, while the WS error message itself refers to 6 decimals, and in practice the service accepts up to 6 decimals without rejection.

In this implementation, we intentionally use 2 decimal places. The reason is consistency with the rest of the monetary amounts in the invoice: line totals, invoice total, taxes, and related amounts are all rounded to 2 decimals, even in cases where the documentation allows higher precision (e.g., 3 decimals).

Before the changes in rounding precision, the stable version already rounded values according to line rounding. In real-world accounting scenarios, the vast majority of use cases operate with 2 decimal places. Keeping this behavior ensures consistency across calculations and avoids discrepancies caused by mixed rounding strategies.

For a stable release, this was considered the safest and most predictable option, even though the WS technically allows higher precision.

Stable version changes are covered in the following commits:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/243987/changes/8a21ec45f9d72a7c80d9c1f8398fe01e298ae775
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/246347/changes/79ceeed707ef274f19a04e741f6cb8ac60c44321


<img width="780" height="435" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/9f25a0e8-b9d2-4ad2-bbcf-e988c7f8a4c9" />

[WSFEX - Manual de desarrollador](https://www.afip.gob.ar/ws/WSFEX/WSFEX-Manualparaeldesarrollador.pdf)

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#106509

The previous compute method loaded all moves records into memory, which caused an out-of-memory issue for large number of record. Replaced the logic with read_group aggregation to perform the calculation using sql and reduce memory usage.

Note: the issue is faced during 16.0 version too but as 16.0 is no more supported for bug fix. So, doing it from 17.0 version. 

```
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/tmp/tmpkvo8a96w/migrations/base/tests/test_mock_crawl.py", line 333, in crawl_menu
    self.mock_action(action_vals)
  File "/tmp/tmpkvo8a96w/migrations/base/tests/test_mock_crawl.py", line 346, in mock_action
    return self.mock_act_window(action)
  File "/tmp/tmpkvo8a96w/migrations/base/tests/test_mock_crawl.py", line 506, in mock_act_window
    mock_method(model, view, fields_list, domain, group_by)
  File "/tmp/tmpkvo8a96w/migrations/base/tests/test_mock_crawl.py", line 657, in mock_view_tree
    self.mock_web_search_read(model, view, [domain], fields_list)
  File "/tmp/tmpkvo8a96w/migrations/base/tests/test_mock_crawl.py", line 691, in mock_web_search_read
    data = model.search_read(domain=domain, fields=fields_list, limit=80, order=filter_order(model))
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/16.0/odoo/models.py", line 5074, in search_read
    result = records.read(fields, **read_kwargs)
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/16.0/odoo/models.py", line 3038, in read
    return self._read_format(fnames=fields, load=load)
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/16.0/odoo/models.py", line 3219, in _read_format
    vals[name] = convert(record[name], record, use_name_get)
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/16.0/odoo/models.py", line 6007, in __getitem__
    return self._fields[key].__get__(self, self.env.registry[self._name])
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/16.0/odoo/fields.py", line 1222, in __get__
    self.compute_value(recs)
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/16.0/odoo/fields.py", line 1404, in compute_value
    records._compute_field_value(self)
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/16.0/addons/mail/models/mail_thread.py", line 403, in _compute_field_value
    return super()._compute_field_value(field)
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/16.0/odoo/models.py", line 4276, in _compute_field_value
    fields.determine(field.compute, self)
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/16.0/odoo/fields.py", line 98, in determine
    return needle(*args)
  File "/home/odoo/src/enterprise/16.0/account_asset/models/account_asset.py", line 293, in _compute_value_residual
    posted_depreciation_moves = record.depreciation_move_ids.filtered(lambda mv: mv.state == 'posted')
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/16.0/odoo/models.py", line 5496, in filtered
    return self.browse([rec.id for rec in self if func(rec)])
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/16.0/odoo/models.py", line 5496, in <listcomp>
    return self.browse([rec.id for rec in self if func(rec)])
  File "/home/odoo/src/enterprise/16.0/account_asset/models/account_asset.py", line 293, in <lambda>
    posted_depreciation_moves = record.depreciation_move_ids.filtered(lambda mv: mv.state == 'posted')
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/16.0/odoo/fields.py", line 1187, in __get__
    recs._fetch_field(self)
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/16.0/odoo/models.py", line 3245, in _fetch_field
    self._read(fnames)
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/16.0/odoo/models.py", line 3351, in _read
    self.env.cache.insert_missing(fetched, field, values)
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/16.0/odoo/api.py", line 1123, in insert_missing
    field_cache.setdefault(id_, val)
MemoryError
```

opw-5921410
upg-3891767

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#109008