1. **Date Sync: mail.activity & sign.request**
      **Before Fix:** When the validity_date on a sign.request was updated, the linked mail.activity (the "Please Sign" task) did not update its deadline. This led to a discrepancy where a document might expire in 2 days, but the user's to-do list still showed a deadline from a week ago.
      
      **Expected Behavior:** The activity deadline should always reflect the current validity of the document to ensure signers are aware of the actual remaining time.
      
      **Fix:** Overrode the write method on sign.request. When the validity_date is modified, the system now automatically updates the date_deadline of all associated records in sign_activity_ids.

2. **Activity Cleanup on Cancel**
    **Before Fix:** Canceling a sign.request changed the document state but left "Signature Request" activities sitting in users' to-do lists. This resulted in "orphan" activities that pointed to canceled documents, cluttering the chatter and the activity bin.
    
    **Expected Behavior:** Canceling a request should globally clean up any pending tasks related to that specific request.
    
    **Fix:** Updated the cancel method to unlink associated activities.
  
    **Note on Conflict Prevention:** To avoid a UserError/MissingRecord when canceling directly from the activity widget (where the interface attempts to delete the activity immediately after calling the cancel method), a context flag skip_sign_activity_unlink was introduced. This ensures that if the activity is already handling its own deletion, the backend doesn't "double-delete" it.

Task: 5989542

Currently, an error occurs when the "Payroll: Update Data" scheduled action is executed.

**Steps to Reproduce:**
 - Install `l10n_sa_hr_payroll` with demo data.
 - Switch to `Saudi Arabian` company.
 - Go to `Payroll` > `Configuration` > `Salary` > `Rule Categories`.
 - Delete all records related to the Saudi Arabian company.
 - Go to `Scheduled Actions` and run `"Payroll: Update Data"`.

`ValueError: External ID not found in the system: l10n_sa_hr_payroll.l10n_sa_category_provision`

After [this commit], the category_id field becomes non-required, allowing users to delete 
a rule category record even if it is linked to a salary rule. When updating the data file [1], 
this causes an error due to the missing rule category [2].

This commit ensures that, when updating the salary rule data, the rule category data is updated 
beforehand, as shown here [3].

[this commit]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/c663fd2a81b7f6b34f8199fdbdc4a75c4f21379e

[1]- https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/5ab4cb8bbf8211783a23a4334b633d52633b0324/l10n_sa_hr_payroll/models/hr_payslip.py#L157-L165

[2]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/5ab4cb8bbf8211783a23a4334b633d52633b0324/l10n_sa_hr_payroll/data/hr_salary_rule_saudi_data.xml#L249

[3]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/5ab4cb8bbf8211783a23a4334b633d52633b0324/l10n_ke_hr_payroll/models/hr_payslip.py#L9-L18

sentry-7349905716

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#111438

The Batch Account Move Lines option in the settings is used to aggregate together the different payslips of a payrun and to create only one move with aggregated lines, per account. This is done to enforce privacy and avoid having lines for each employee in the payrun. If salary rules with analytic distributions are involved, though, the lines are not merged and we lose the anonimity.

This happens because in the _get_existing_lines funciton, that should return the lines to be merged with the input line (line), the condition for the rules that have an analytic distribution is wrong.

In particular, the condition is wrong because the
distribution_analytic_account_ids field is a recordset of the accounts, while line_id['analytic_distribution'] is a dictionary with keys that are comma separated strings of the ids of the accounts, with values reflecting the percentage.

For example, if a rule has one analytic distribution for 40% and involving accounts 13,7 and 12 + another analytic distribution for 60% involving accounts 3 and 5, line_id['analytic_distribution'] will be {'13,7,12': 40.0, '3,5': 60.0} while distribution_analytic_etc will be a recordset containing (13,7,12,3,5). To fix the problem and keep everything inline, we extract the logic to a new function, where we first unravel the ids from the keys of the dictionary and only then try to match them to the values in the recordset.

Task: 6043957

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#111140

Steps to reproduce (singleton crash):

Create an employee in a UTC+ timezone (e.g. Asia/Shanghai or Australia/Adelaide) with an overtime ruleset containing a paid rule. Generate work entries for a period, then create two consecutive midnight-to-midnight attendances in the employee's local timezone. Creating the second attendance crashes with: "ValueError: Expected singleton: hr.attendance.overtime.line(...)".

Steps to reproduce (stale overtime lines):

With the same setup, delete the attendance after it generated overtime lines. The overtime lines remain in the database instead of being removed.

The singleton crash occurred because `end_of_day` in `_get_overtime_intervals` was computed as a naive datetime, implicitly treated as UTC. For UTC+ timezones, the actual local end of day is earlier than UTC midnight. As a result, overtime intervals were computed with a stop time extending past the real local midnight into UTC time. When consecutive attendances were processed together, these extended intervals overlapped. The `Intervals` class (`keep_distinct=True`) merges overlapping intervals into a single entry with a multi-record recordset as payload. The subsequent `overtime.rule_ids.work_entry_type_id` and `overtime.status` calls expected a singleton but received a multi-record set, causing the crash. The same multi-record issue also affected the iteration in `_set_real_overtime_intervals` and the overtime work entry loop in `_get_attendance_intervals`.

The stale overtime lines issue occurred because `_get_overtimes_to_update_domain` (hr_attendance) built its search date range from raw UTC `.date()` values instead of the employee's local timezone. For UTC+ employees whose attendance spans local midnight, the overtime line is dated in the next local calendar day. Since the domain was derived from UTC dates, that next local day fell outside the search range, so the overtime line was never found and deleted when the attendance was removed.

Solution:
- In `_get_overtime_intervals`, localize `end_of_day` to the employee's timezone before converting to UTC, so overtime intervals are correctly bounded by the local end of day.
- In `_set_real_overtime_intervals` and the overtime loop in `_get_attendance_intervals`, iterate over individual records from potentially multi-record `Intervals` payloads to avoid singleton errors.
- In `_get_overtimes_to_update_domain` (hr_attendance), localize check_in/check_out to the employee's timezone before computing the date range so overtime lines for dates that only exist in local time are correctly included in the delete-and-recreate cycle.

opw-5931665

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#111075
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#109419

Step to reproduce:
- install spreadsheet_dashboard_sale and pos_sale
- create a order in pos , invoice it too
- open sale dashboard

Observation:
- the order fulfilled in pos, does not reflect in dashboard

Cause:
- sale has 4 status i.e ["draft", "sent", "sale", "cancel"]
- when pos_sale is installed, new status oders are added i.e ['paid', 'invoiced', 'done']
- sale dashboard pivot relies on sale defined status only, which so not consider orders that have status in  ['paid', 'invoiced', 'done']

Fix:
- fix the domain of pivots such that, it will now accept other orders too

**Before:**

<img width="1058" height="277" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/e58c88fa-5ad3-4194-9f9c-ddf41f2f73de" />

<img width="1116" height="190" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/259e0347-5d5b-4d5c-9aeb-74102aa4becd" />
<br/>


**After**
<br/>

<img width="1137" height="232" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/406b71a5-1dd8-4164-9d4e-4f0bca34c9e8" />

<img width="1125" height="235" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/fded3203-7d72-45ea-b5aa-142ebcd52136" />


opw-5487654

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#248142

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

## Issue before this commit:

Creating an invoice from a POS order with **Cash Rounding enabled only for cash payment methods** raised an unexpected validation error:

> *"The operation cannot be completed: Missing required account on accountable line."*

This happened when the order was paid using a **non-cash payment method**, but rounding logic was still applied.

## Steps to Reproduce:

1. Install the `point_of_sale` module.
2. Go to POS Configuration → Settings:

   * Enable **Cash Rounding**
   * Set a **Rounding Method**
   * Enable **Only on cash methods**
3. Create a product:

   * Sale Price: 260
   * Tax: 6%
4. Open a POS session.
5. Add the product to an order.
6. Apply a discount (e.g., 1.123).
7. Pay using a **non-cash payment method** (journal not marked as cash).
8. Enable **Invoice** and validate the order
   *(or create the invoice later from the Orders menu)*

## Cause of the Issue:

While `_prepare_invoice_vals` correctly avoids setting `invoice_cash_rounding_id` for non-cash payments, `_create_invoice` still executes rounding logic whenever cash rounding is enabled on the POS configuration.

This leads to a mismatch where:

* No rounding configuration is set on the invoice
* Rounding logic still attempts to create/update rounding lines
* Required accounts (profit/loss) cannot be determined
* A validation error is raised due to missing account on the generated line

## With This Commit:

The rounding logic in `_create_invoice` is now guarded by checking the presence of `invoice_cash_rounding_id`.

This ensures rounding is only applied when properly configured and avoids unexpected validation errors for non-cash payment invoices.

Steps To Reporduce: [Video Link](https://drive.google.com/file/d/10ticlUW5i5pbu_oDDPqR-jg0hVcNWf3Z/view?usp=sharing)

opw-6005320
opw-5951991
opw-6036870

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#254844

This commit resolves a performance bottleneck that occurred when handling very
large sale orders (e.g., ~200 order lines). Previously, the util function
`getParentSectionRecord` determined the parent (sub)section of an order line by
iterating over all preceding order lines. Since this logic was executed for each
order line, the overall complexity became O(n²).

Moreover, this function was invoked inside the `shouldCollapse` method, which is
used in multiple UI flows during rendering. As a result, large sale orders could
cause noticeable UI slowdowns and block the main JavaScript thread.

To address this, we now build a parent–child section mapping once per render
in O(n) time. Subsequent lookups simply read from this mapping instead of
recomputing the parent by scanning previous lines.

This significantly reduces the computational cost and prevents UI blocking when
working with large orders, leading to a much smoother rendering experience.

opw-5865167

Benchmark:

| No. records | Before      | After        |
|----------------|---------------|--------------|
|       150      |   1300ms  |   ~850ms |


| Before      | After        |
|---------------|--------------|
|   <img width="287" height="284" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/dd73ab18-3c53-4958-99b7-083dd5cd9e64" />  |   <img width="311" height="277" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/b6e90fa3-85eb-4d72-b616-28aff9a938e8" />|
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#255180
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#252991

Before this commit, if the user configured the sales journal to be locked by a hash, then a cancellation in ticketbai would 1/ send the cancel request to ticketBAI. This would be processed successfully 2/ try to reset the invoice to draft inside of Odoo, then cancel it. This would fail with an error since account moves protected by a hash cannot be reset to draft.

The result is a blocked database where the invoice cannot be altered in Odoo while its status doesn't match the status in ticketBAI.

In this commit, we propose to check for the secure hash before sending the invoice over to ticketBAI. The invoice is not altered yet at that stage to account for potential ticketBAI errors in the normal flow.

While this option is not great from a usability perspective (preventing secure hashes with ticketBAI is probably best), we believe the current solution offers the best compromise in the context of a bugfix.

The issue does not seem to be reproducible outside of production as the core of the problem is a mismatch in state between ticketBAIand Odoo.

opw-5912848

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#250886

Currently when the user creates an invoice the delivery date is set incorrectly.

<h2>Steps to produce:</h2>

* Set system timezone to Asia/Kolkata and time to 5:00
* Install Sales, Inventory
* Create and confirm a sale order
* Go to Delivery and Validate the delivery
* Go back to the Sale order and create an invoice.


<h2>Observed Behavior:</h2>
The delivery date on the customer invoice is set to one day before the current date, even though the effective date for the delivery correctly reflects the system date and time.

<h2>Root cause:</h2>

This issue occurs because, when a delivery is validated, the `date_done` field is set using the current time in UTC at [1], because odoo operates in UTC by default. This value is then used to compute the effective date on the
sales order at [2], which in turn is used to determine the delivery date on the invoice at [3] and [4].

Users see the effective date on the delivery in their own timezone because `Datetime` fields are converted from UTC to the user’s timezone on the client side as stated in [5]. However problem arises from a type mismatch. The delivery date field is of type `Date`, while the effective date is a `Datetime`. As a result, when the value is assigned at [3] or at [4], only the date portion is passed.

Because a Date field does not carry any timezone information, no timezone conversion occurs, leading to the observed discrepancy.

[1]-
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ebb2b2ef02bbffeac4d11c1acdd7e6b4dc151bf9/addons/stock/models/stock_picking.py#L1274
[2]-
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ebb2b2ef02bbffeac4d11c1acdd7e6b4dc151bf9/addons/sale_stock/models/sale_order.py#L87-L88
[3]-
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ebb2b2ef02bbffeac4d11c1acdd7e6b4dc151bf9/addons/sale_stock/models/account_move.py#L122
[4]-
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ebb2b2ef02bbffeac4d11c1acdd7e6b4dc151bf9/addons/sale_stock/models/sale_order.py#L301
[5]-
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ebb2b2ef02bbffeac4d11c1acdd7e6b4dc151bf9/odoo/orm/fields_temporal.py#L214-L217

## **Solution:**
Using the `context_timestamp` function makes it possible to work with the `Datetime` in the client’s timezone, which can then be used to correctly assign the delivery date on the invoice.


opw-5391189

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#255404
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#247122

Steps to reproduce (singleton crash):

Create an employee in a UTC+ timezone (e.g. Asia/Shanghai or Australia/Adelaide) with an overtime ruleset containing a paid rule. Generate work entries for a period, then create two consecutive midnight-to-midnight attendances in the employee's local timezone. Creating the second attendance crashes with: "ValueError: Expected singleton: hr.attendance.overtime.line(...)".

Steps to reproduce (stale overtime lines):

With the same setup, delete the attendance after it generated overtime lines. The overtime lines remain in the database instead of being removed.

The singleton crash occurred because `end_of_day` in `_get_overtime_intervals` was computed as a naive datetime, implicitly treated as UTC. For UTC+ timezones, the actual local end of day is earlier than UTC midnight. As a result, overtime intervals were computed with a stop time extending past the real local midnight into UTC time. When consecutive attendances were processed together, these extended intervals overlapped. The `Intervals` class (`keep_distinct=True`) merges overlapping intervals into a single entry with a multi-record recordset as payload. The subsequent `overtime.rule_ids.work_entry_type_id` and `overtime.status` calls expected a singleton but received a multi-record set, causing the crash. The same multi-record issue also affected the iteration in `_set_real_overtime_intervals` and the overtime work entry loop in `_get_attendance_intervals`.

The stale overtime lines issue occurred because `_get_overtimes_to_update_domain` built its search date range from raw UTC `.date()` values instead of the employee's local timezone. For UTC+ employees whose attendance spans local midnight, the overtime line is dated in the next local calendar day. Since the domain was derived from UTC dates, that next local day fell outside the search range, so the overtime line was never found and deleted when the attendance was removed. Additionally, `_get_localized_times` called `.astimezone()` on naive UTC datetimes without first localizing them, producing incorrect local times for the same reason.

Solution:
- In `_get_overtimes_to_update_domain`, localize check_in/check_out to the employee's timezone before computing the overtime search date range (with a ±1 day buffer) so overtime lines for dates that only exist in local time are correctly included in the delete-and-recreate cycle.
- Fix `_get_localized_times` to call `utc.localize()` on naive UTC datetimes before converting to the employee's timezone.

opw-5931665

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#254543
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#251812

# Product Configuration
*Manufactured Product*
- Storable
- Tracked by Quantity
- Manufacture Route
- Has a BOM with atleast 1 component

*Component Product*
- Storable
- Tracked By Lot

# How to reproduce
- Ensure there is available stock for the component product in a lot
- Create a MO for the Manufatured Product
- Confirm the MO
- Click "Details" on the component product
- Remove the reserved quant and add a new one
- Increase the quantity of this new quant to more than "To Consume"
- Save
- Observe that "Consumed" = The quantity you just set on the quant
- Click on "Produce All"

# The issue
- The Consumed quantity is reset to the "To Consume" quantity.
- Furthermore, a warning popup should be displayed when clicking on "Produce All" but there is none.
- Finally, depending on the version you may get this error message : "You need to supply Lot/Serial Number for products and 'consume' them: - Component Product" even though a lot is already assigned

# Why
All these issues stem from the fact that move_raw_ids.picked from mrp.production is set to False instead of True.

This issue was introduced by this commit (https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/ef592464983d66ac76bc71a9886462f1f47dc28d) that changed the way the picked value is set.

In write(self, vals) de stock_move, we have :
```py
if self.env.context.get('force_manual_consumption') and 'quantity' in vals:
            moves_to_update = self.filtered(lambda move: move.product_uom_qty != vals['quantity'])
            if moves_to_update:
                moves_to_update.write({'manual_consumption': True, 'picked': True})
```
Followed a bit later by :
```py
res = super().write(vals)
```

This usually works fine except when vals contains edition commands for move_line_ids. Then, the first write will correclty set picked to True, but then picked will be reevaluted after the second write with :
```py
@api.depends('move_line_ids.picked', 'state')
    def _compute_picked(self):
        for move in self:
            if move.state == 'done' or any(ml.picked for ml in move.move_line_ids):
                move.picked = True
            else:
                move.picked = False
```

If all the resulting move_line_ids from the commands edition have picked set to False, then move.picked will also be set to False.

opw-5937171

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#253607

The Batch Account Move Lines option in the settings is used to aggregate together the different payslips of a payrun and to create only one move with aggregated lines, per account. This is done to enforce privacy and avoid having lines for each employee in the payrun. If salary rules with analytic distributions are involved, though, the lines are not merged and we lose the anonimity.

This happens because in the _get_existing_lines funciton, that should return the lines to be merged with the input line (line), the condition for the rules that have an analytic distribution is wrong.

In particular, the condition is wrong because the
distribution_analytic_account_ids field is a recordset of the accounts, while line_id['analytic_distribution'] is a dictionary with keys that are comma separated strings of the ids of the accounts, with values reflecting the percentage.

For example, if a rule has one analytic distribution for 40% and involving accounts 13,7 and 12 + another analytic distribution for 60% involving accounts 3 and 5, line_id['analytic_distribution'] will be {'13,7,12': 40.0, '3,5': 60.0} while distribution_analytic_etc will be a recordset containing (13,7,12,3,5). To fix the problem and keep everything inline, we extract the logic to a new function, where we first unravel the ids from the keys of the dictionary and only then try to match them to the values in the recordset.

Task: 6043957

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#111140

In multi-country databases, a Peruvian company can invoice a foreign customer (e.g., a Colombian company) whose identification type is defined by another localization. Those records typically have an empty l10n_pe_vat_code, since there are no cross-country dependencies between LATAM identification types.

In that case, the generated UBL leaves the receiver identity type empty and SUNAT returns an error like:
```
2015/2015 - El XML no contiene el tag o no existe informacion del tipo de documento de identidad del receptor... (missing schemeID value).
```

Odoo already defines schemeID = 0 for some foreign identification types in l10n_pe data, but it cannot cover identification types coming from other countries’ localizations (e.g. Colombia):
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/18.0/addons/l10n_pe/data/l10n_latam_identification_type_data.xml#L4

This change ensures that, when the partner is not from Peru and the PE VAT code is missing, we fallback the receiver identification type to "0" in:
- PartyIdentification/ID/@schemeID
- AccountingCustomerParty/AdditionalAccountID
- the QR payload identification type field

This prevents generating invalid UBL/QR content for foreign customers in multi-country setups.

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#110324
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#105115

**Steps to reproduce**
1. Have an employee using a flexible schedule
2. Create a slot from e.g. 20PM to 4AM for this employee. Make
sure this is the only slot that week for the employee.
3. Publish the Schedule and send it to the employee. Open the
outgoing mail to access the link to the planning view.

Issue: the slot is not visible in the week view.

**Cause**
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/04a885dbb6eed96297cb5ce9a155ebf8e169427c/planning/controllers/main.py#L193-L194
The `event_hour_min` and `event_hour_max` returned by `planning_get`
and used to control the min/max hours displayed in the week view,
didn't account for slots over multiple days.
For a slot between 20pm and 4am, the `event_hour_max` should be the
end of the day, and the `event_hour_min` should be the start of the
day.

**Solution**
- we change the `event_hour_min` and `event_hour_max` for multi-day
slots to display the full days in the week view
- the previous point has the drawback of displaying the full days
for non-flexible employees even when not necessary. This is because
`slots_start_datetime` and `slots_end_datetime` contained the
`planning.slot` start and end. Instead, we can look at the actual
slot values displayed (by `_get_slots_vals`). For example, a 5 day
slot for a non-flexible employee may contain actual slot values
corresponding to a typical 8-17 working day.

opw-5245985

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#110874
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#99784

Step to reproduce:
- install spreadsheet_dashboard_sale and pos_sale
- create a order in pos , invoice it too
- open sale dashboard

Observation:
- the order fulfilled in pos, does not reflect in dashboard

Cause:
- sale has 4 status i.e ["draft", "sent", "sale", "cancel"]
- when pos_sale is installed, new status oders are added i.e ['paid', 'invoiced', 'done']
- sale dashboard pivot relies on sale defined status only, which so not consider orders that have status in  ['paid', 'invoiced', 'done']

Fix:
- fix the domain of pivots such that, it will now accept other orders too

**Before:**

<img width="1058" height="277" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/e58c88fa-5ad3-4194-9f9c-ddf41f2f73de" />

<img width="1116" height="190" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/259e0347-5d5b-4d5c-9aeb-74102aa4becd" />
<br/>


**After**
<br/>

<img width="1137" height="232" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/406b71a5-1dd8-4164-9d4e-4f0bca34c9e8" />

<img width="1125" height="235" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/fded3203-7d72-45ea-b5aa-142ebcd52136" />


opw-5487654

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#248142

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

## Issue before this commit:

Creating an invoice from a POS order with **Cash Rounding enabled only for cash payment methods** raised an unexpected validation error:

> *"The operation cannot be completed: Missing required account on accountable line."*

This happened when the order was paid using a **non-cash payment method**, but rounding logic was still applied.

## Steps to Reproduce:

1. Install the `point_of_sale` module.
2. Go to POS Configuration → Settings:

   * Enable **Cash Rounding**
   * Set a **Rounding Method**
   * Enable **Only on cash methods**
3. Create a product:

   * Sale Price: 260
   * Tax: 6%
4. Open a POS session.
5. Add the product to an order.
6. Apply a discount (e.g., 1.123).
7. Pay using a **non-cash payment method** (journal not marked as cash).
8. Enable **Invoice** and validate the order
   *(or create the invoice later from the Orders menu)*

## Cause of the Issue:

While `_prepare_invoice_vals` correctly avoids setting `invoice_cash_rounding_id` for non-cash payments, `_create_invoice` still executes rounding logic whenever cash rounding is enabled on the POS configuration.

This leads to a mismatch where:

* No rounding configuration is set on the invoice
* Rounding logic still attempts to create/update rounding lines
* Required accounts (profit/loss) cannot be determined
* A validation error is raised due to missing account on the generated line

## With This Commit:

The rounding logic in `_create_invoice` is now guarded by checking the presence of `invoice_cash_rounding_id`.

This ensures rounding is only applied when properly configured and avoids unexpected validation errors for non-cash payment invoices.

Steps To Reporduce: [Video Link](https://drive.google.com/file/d/10ticlUW5i5pbu_oDDPqR-jg0hVcNWf3Z/view?usp=sharing)

opw-6005320
opw-5951991
opw-6036870

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#254844

Currently when the user creates an invoice the delivery date is set incorrectly.

<h2>Steps to produce:</h2>

* Set system timezone to Asia/Kolkata and time to 5:00
* Install Sales, Inventory
* Create and confirm a sale order
* Go to Delivery and Validate the delivery
* Go back to the Sale order and create an invoice.


<h2>Observed Behavior:</h2>
The delivery date on the customer invoice is set to one day before the current date, even though the effective date for the delivery correctly reflects the system date and time.

<h2>Root cause:</h2>

This issue occurs because, when a delivery is validated, the `date_done` field is set using the current time in UTC at [1], because odoo operates in UTC by default. This value is then used to compute the effective date on the
sales order at [2], which in turn is used to determine the delivery date on the invoice at [3] and [4].

Users see the effective date on the delivery in their own timezone because `Datetime` fields are converted from UTC to the user’s timezone on the client side as stated in [5]. However problem arises from a type mismatch. The delivery date field is of type `Date`, while the effective date is a `Datetime`. As a result, when the value is assigned at [3] or at [4], only the date portion is passed.

Because a Date field does not carry any timezone information, no timezone conversion occurs, leading to the observed discrepancy.

[1]-
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ebb2b2ef02bbffeac4d11c1acdd7e6b4dc151bf9/addons/stock/models/stock_picking.py#L1274
[2]-
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ebb2b2ef02bbffeac4d11c1acdd7e6b4dc151bf9/addons/sale_stock/models/sale_order.py#L87-L88
[3]-
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ebb2b2ef02bbffeac4d11c1acdd7e6b4dc151bf9/addons/sale_stock/models/account_move.py#L122
[4]-
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ebb2b2ef02bbffeac4d11c1acdd7e6b4dc151bf9/addons/sale_stock/models/sale_order.py#L301
[5]-
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ebb2b2ef02bbffeac4d11c1acdd7e6b4dc151bf9/odoo/orm/fields_temporal.py#L214-L217

## **Solution:**
Using the `context_timestamp` function makes it possible to work with the `Datetime` in the client’s timezone, which can then be used to correctly assign the delivery date on the invoice.


opw-5391189

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#247122

Before this commit, if the user configured the sales journal to be locked by a hash, then a cancellation in ticketbai would 1/ send the cancel request to ticketBAI. This would be processed successfully 2/ try to reset the invoice to draft inside of Odoo, then cancel it. This would fail with an error since account moves protected by a hash cannot be reset to draft.

The result is a blocked database where the invoice cannot be altered in Odoo while its status doesn't match the status in ticketBAI.

In this commit, we propose to check for the secure hash before sending the invoice over to ticketBAI. The invoice is not altered yet at that stage to account for potential ticketBAI errors in the normal flow.

While this option is not great from a usability perspective (preventing secure hashes with ticketBAI is probably best), we believe the current solution offers the best compromise in the context of a bugfix.

The issue does not seem to be reproducible outside of production as the core of the problem is a mismatch in state between ticketBAIand Odoo.

opw-5912848

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#250886

An error is raised when we try to acces the inventory valuation if a move has been returned and the quantity set on the original move is changed to 0

Steps to reproduce:
1. Install Accounting and Inventory
2. Create a product called "Product" and set the Category to "Goods"
3. Go to Inventory > Configuration > Categories, open category "Goods" and change the costing method to "Average Cost (AVCO)"
4. Go to Inventory > Operations > Deliveries and create a new delivery for any customer with one of product "Product"
5. Validate the delivery, click on "Return" then on "Return All"
6. Validate the return
7. Go back to the original delivery and in Actions, click on "Lock/Unlock"
8. Set the quantity to 0 and save
9. Go to Accounting > Review > Inventory valuation
10. Change the day to any day after today
11. An error is raised

Issue:
Trying to get the inventory valuation at another day then today will replay the history
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/88df50bc96448dfaff28bd37e970ffd18bf8d554/addons/stock_account/models/product.py#L444-L450
Which will call `_get_value()` on the moves related to the product
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/88df50bc96448dfaff28bd37e970ffd18bf8d554/addons/stock_account/models/stock_move.py#L388-L391
A ZeroDivisionError will then be raised when trying to get the value of a return move and the original move's quantity is 0
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/873d4d262ed3e85362aa677b5a782d6e7fa00f09/addons/stock_account/models/stock_move.py#L457

Solution:
If the original move's quantity is 0, set the value to 0
This ensures the move is valued at 0 if the move has no quantity. In other words, a move that has no quantity shouldn't be considered to have any value as there really is nothing to value.

opw-5980600

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#253392

To compute the inventory valuation report, stock_account builds a valuation context through `_with_valuation_context()` and passes the valued internal/transit locations to stock quantity computation.

Without `strict=True`, stock quantity domains treat these locations as hierarchical anchors and expand them again through the location tree. This is redundant in this specific call site because `_with_valuation_context()` already provides the valued locations to filter on.

On databases with a large location tree, this extra expansion makes the inventory valuation load much slower than necessary.

Using `strict=True` makes quantity computation use the provided valued locations directly.

### Benchmark:
- active products: 5912
- stock moves: ~785k
- internal locations: 4213

| Before  | After  |
|---------|--------|
| 99.285s | 1.853s |

opw-5944584

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#253656

To reproduce the issue:

- Setup tax periodicity to "trimester"
- Create a report evaluating something with previous_tax_period date_scope (real cases tend to do that for carryover ; see monthly Italian tax report for an example)
- Create the appropriate data so that in the current trimester, the report line evaluates to 42, and to 1 in the previous trimester
- Open the report for the second month of the trimester => The line has value 42, while it should have 1.

This happens because the date bounds for previous_tax_period were computed too naively, considering the date_from was always the first day of the tax period. The first day of the second month of the trimester, it's not the case, and we return the period boundaries of the day before that day. That day is the last day of the first month of the trimester, but belongs to the same trimester, so it's the same tax period. Therefore, we display the value of the current tax period, which is wrong.

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#111483
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#110504

Step to reproduce:
- install spreadsheet_dashboard_sale and pos_sale
- create a order in pos , invoice it too
- open sale dashboard

Observation:
- the order fulfilled in pos, does not reflect in dashboard

Cause:
- sale has 4 status i.e ["draft", "sent", "sale", "cancel"]
- when pos_sale is installed, new status oders are added i.e ['paid', 'invoiced', 'done']
- sale dashboard pivot relies on sale defined status only, which so not consider orders that have status in  ['paid', 'invoiced', 'done']

Fix:
- fix the domain of pivots such that, it will now accept other orders too

**Before:**

<img width="1058" height="277" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/e58c88fa-5ad3-4194-9f9c-ddf41f2f73de" />

<img width="1116" height="190" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/259e0347-5d5b-4d5c-9aeb-74102aa4becd" />
<br/>


**After**
<br/>

<img width="1137" height="232" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/406b71a5-1dd8-4164-9d4e-4f0bca34c9e8" />

<img width="1125" height="235" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/fded3203-7d72-45ea-b5aa-142ebcd52136" />


opw-5487654

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#248142

## Issue before this commit:

Creating an invoice from a POS order with **Cash Rounding enabled only for cash payment methods** raised an unexpected validation error:

> *"The operation cannot be completed: Missing required account on accountable line."*

This happened when the order was paid using a **non-cash payment method**, but rounding logic was still applied.

## Steps to Reproduce:

1. Install the `point_of_sale` module.
2. Go to POS Configuration → Settings:

   * Enable **Cash Rounding**
   * Set a **Rounding Method**
   * Enable **Only on cash methods**
3. Create a product:

   * Sale Price: 260
   * Tax: 6%
4. Open a POS session.
5. Add the product to an order.
6. Apply a discount (e.g., 1.123).
7. Pay using a **non-cash payment method** (journal not marked as cash).
8. Enable **Invoice** and validate the order
   *(or create the invoice later from the Orders menu)*

## Cause of the Issue:

While `_prepare_invoice_vals` correctly avoids setting `invoice_cash_rounding_id` for non-cash payments, `_create_invoice` still executes rounding logic whenever cash rounding is enabled on the POS configuration.

This leads to a mismatch where:

* No rounding configuration is set on the invoice
* Rounding logic still attempts to create/update rounding lines
* Required accounts (profit/loss) cannot be determined
* A validation error is raised due to missing account on the generated line

## With This Commit:

The rounding logic in `_create_invoice` is now guarded by checking the presence of `invoice_cash_rounding_id`.

This ensures rounding is only applied when properly configured and avoids unexpected validation errors for non-cash payment invoices.

Steps To Reporduce: [Video Link](https://drive.google.com/file/d/10ticlUW5i5pbu_oDDPqR-jg0hVcNWf3Z/view?usp=sharing)

opw-6005320
opw-5951991
opw-6036870

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#254844

Before this commit, if the user configured the sales journal to be locked by a hash, then a cancellation in ticketbai would 1/ send the cancel request to ticketBAI. This would be processed successfully 2/ try to reset the invoice to draft inside of Odoo, then cancel it. This would fail with an error since account moves protected by a hash cannot be reset to draft.

The result is a blocked database where the invoice cannot be altered in Odoo while its status doesn't match the status in ticketBAI.

In this commit, we propose to check for the secure hash before sending the invoice over to ticketBAI. The invoice is not altered yet at that stage to account for potential ticketBAI errors in the normal flow.

While this option is not great from a usability perspective (preventing secure hashes with ticketBAI is probably best), we believe the current solution offers the best compromise in the context of a bugfix.

The issue does not seem to be reproducible outside of production as the core of the problem is a mismatch in state between ticketBAIand Odoo.

opw-5912848

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#250886

Steps to reproduce
==================

- Install contacts,web_studio
- Login as admin
- Go to contacts
- Open any record
- Open studio
- Click on any field
- Add the "Role / Portal" group
- Toggle the "Show invisible Elements" checkbox
- Click on the same field

=> The field is marked as invisible

- Add an invisible condition

=> The invisible condition is lost (but still applied on the view)

Cause of the issue
==================

In studio, when fetching the view, the invisible attribute is set to True when the user does not have access to the field (when he is not part of the groups).

The goal is to make the field invisible in studio unless the "Show invisible Elements" is toggled.

But this causes the actual value of the invisible attribute to be lost.

Note that this also applies to the column_invisible attribute.

Solution
========

If an invisible/column_invisible attribute is present on the nodes with missing access, we copy the actual value to the `actual_invisible` attribute.

We then use that value in the editor, when present.

opw-6026971

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#111610
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#111299

**Steps to reproduce:**

- Make sure you have 3 companies (comp A, B and C)
- Navigate to Settings/Users & Companies/ Companies 
- for each company in the 'Inter Company Transactions' tab: 
check 'generate Sale Orders', 'generate purchase orders' and 
'synchronize Deliveries to your receipts' then select a warehouse 
and a receipt operation type

From company A
- create a storable product
- in the Purchase tab, set the company B as a vendor

From company B 
- in the Purchase tab of the product, set company C as a vendor

From company C
- set a positive on hand quantity

From Company A
- create a SO for 1 quantity of your product
- on the sale order line, unhide de route_id column and 
set it to dropship
- confirm the SO and the linked PO

From company B
- on the SO created with company A as customer (you might need to 
remove the 'my quotations filter to find it), set the dropship 
route in the route_id column of the sale order line
- confirm the SO and the linked PO

From company C
- confirm SO created with company B as customer
- validate the delivery

From company B
- validate the dropship

**Current behavior:**
the quantity delivered on the sale order line is 0 

**Expected behavior:**
it should be 1

**Cause of the issue:**
inside _compute_qty_delivered, we fetch the incoming 
and outgoing moves using _get_outgoing_incoming_moves()
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b936b64ed0217909ff96a1b28d1370f5064be46a/addons/sale_stock/models/sale_order_line.py#L200
There, for the move of the dropship picking, inside the 
if condition, move._is_dropshipped_returned() will be True
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b936b64ed0217909ff96a1b28d1370f5064be46a/addons/sale_stock/models/sale_order_line.py#L348-L354
That's because the move is going from transit to transit
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b936b64ed0217909ff96a1b28d1370f5064be46a/addons/stock_account/models/stock_move.py#L186-L195
So it will not be added to the outgoing moves and 
qty_delivered will stay 0.

**fix**
is_dropshipped_returned should not prevent the move 
to be added to the outgoing moves if is_dropshipped() is 
aslo true (i.e. it's a transit to transit move)

opw-5023215

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#111108

Currently, an error occurs when searching by date on the shop page.

**Steps to Reproduce:**

- Install the `website_sale_renting_planning` module.
- Go to `Products` and create a product with the following configuration:
  - `Type`: `Service`
  - Under the `Sales` tab, set the `Periodicity` value.
- Go to `Planning` > `Configuration` > `Roles` and switch to `Kanban` view.
- Create a record by adding a `Resource` and the `service` product.
 - Enable `Sync Shifts and Rental Orders` in this role.
- Go to `Website` > `Shop`.
- Click `Edit` > `Style` > enable `Rental` by selecting it in the `toolbar`, then `save`.
- Set the `start date` and `end date` and `apply` the filter.

**Error1:**

`ValueError: Invalid field 'resource_id' on model 'planning.slot' for 'resource_id:recordset'.`

**Error2:**

 ` File "/home/odoo/odoo18/community/addons/resource/models/resource_calendar.py", line 455, in _leave_intervals_batch for _, resources in resources_per_tz.items():`
`AttributeError: 'resource.resource' object has no attribute 'items'`

This error occurs because after this [recent commit], the field `resource_id` was replaced by 
`resource_ids` with a M2M relation. When the user searches by date, the system attempts 
to group planning slots by `resource_id`, which raises the error[1].
After this [new commit], _leave_intervals_batch expects resources grouped by timezone, 
but here only resources are passed [2], which raises the error [3].

This commit ensures that `search_fetch` is used to retrieve `resource_ids`, since `read_group` 
cannot group records by M2M fields. It also ensures that resources with their timezone are 
correctly passed to _leave_intervals_batch.

[recent commit]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/fbf8b2ac67c71ca0abfc75df543069696bd2d29b

[new commit]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/2dff65ab8b5a9db21d5b476065a72755cc4625be#diff-11ecbc9f00711187e60b88f84c618046bb24ada8c39cb29037568c1aa46f06a5

[1]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/288c7d9c1f29746e0abe0338801621c033a2280c/website_sale_renting_planning/models/product_template.py#L30

[2]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/288c7d9c1f29746e0abe0338801621c033a2280c/website_sale_renting_planning/models/product_template.py#L50

[3]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/9e41753a14c7398927445d8dc8f69dc57047b0b6/addons/resource/models/resource_calendar.py#L453

sentry-7325252044

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#110306

An error is thrown when an employee's contract starts mid-period.
```py
Invalid Operation

Wrong python code defined for:
- Employee: Cesar Osbaldo Cruz Solorzano
- Version: False
- Payslip: Payslip - Cesar Osbaldo Cruz Solorzano - 01/16/2026 - 01/31/2026
- Salary rule: Integrated Daily Wage (Base) (INT_DAY_WAGE_BASE)
- Error: AttributeError("'bool' object has no attribute 'year'") while evaluating
'\nresult = round(payslip.l10n_mx_integration_factor * payslip.l10n_mx_daily_salary, 4)\n
```

Steps to reproduce:
1. Install `l10n_mx_hr_payroll` modules
2. Switch to ESCUELA KEMPER URGATE company
3. Go to Employees and open Cesar Osbaldo Cruz Solorzano
4. Go to Payroll tab, change the start date of contract to 01/10/2026 and save
5. Go to Payroll > Payslips > Payslips and create a new pay run
6. Select Salary Structure 'Mexico: Regular Pay', Pay Schedule 'Monthly' and Period '01/01/2026 -> 01/31/2026'
7. Click on Continue, select Cesar and click on Select
8. An error is thrown

Problem:
In `_compute_integration_factor` method, `_get_first_contract_date` is called with context `before_date`, it returns `False` as the contract starts after the payslip period. This causes an error when trying to access the `year` field of `start_date`.

Solution:
Add a fallback to call `_get_first_contract_date` without context in case the first call returns `False`.

target: saas-18.4
task-6034836

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#111417
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#110568

Currently, an error occurs when the "Payroll: Update Data" scheduled action is executed.

**Steps to Reproduce:**
 - Install `l10n_sa_hr_payroll` with demo data.
 - Switch to `Saudi Arabian` company.
 - Go to `Payroll` > `Configuration` > `Salary` > `Rule Categories`.
 - Delete all records related to the Saudi Arabian company.
 - Go to `Scheduled Actions` and run `"Payroll: Update Data"`.

`ValueError: External ID not found in the system: l10n_sa_hr_payroll.l10n_sa_category_provision`

After [this commit], the category_id field becomes non-required, allowing users to delete 
a rule category record even if it is linked to a salary rule. When updating the data file [1], 
this causes an error due to the missing rule category [2].

This commit ensures that, when updating the salary rule data, the rule category data is updated 
beforehand, as shown here [3].

[this commit]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/c663fd2a81b7f6b34f8199fdbdc4a75c4f21379e

[1]- https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/5ab4cb8bbf8211783a23a4334b633d52633b0324/l10n_sa_hr_payroll/models/hr_payslip.py#L157-L165

[2]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/5ab4cb8bbf8211783a23a4334b633d52633b0324/l10n_sa_hr_payroll/data/hr_salary_rule_saudi_data.xml#L249

[3]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/5ab4cb8bbf8211783a23a4334b633d52633b0324/l10n_ke_hr_payroll/models/hr_payslip.py#L9-L18

sentry-7349905716

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#111438

1. **Date Sync: mail.activity & sign.request**
      **Before Fix:** When the validity_date on a sign.request was updated, the linked mail.activity (the "Please Sign" task) did not update its deadline. This led to a discrepancy where a document might expire in 2 days, but the user's to-do list still showed a deadline from a week ago.
      
      **Expected Behavior:** The activity deadline should always reflect the current validity of the document to ensure signers are aware of the actual remaining time.
      
      **Fix:** Overrode the write method on sign.request. When the validity_date is modified, the system now automatically updates the date_deadline of all associated records in sign_activity_ids.

2. **Activity Cleanup on Cancel**
    **Before Fix:** Canceling a sign.request changed the document state but left "Signature Request" activities sitting in users' to-do lists. This resulted in "orphan" activities that pointed to canceled documents, cluttering the chatter and the activity bin.
    
    **Expected Behavior:** Canceling a request should globally clean up any pending tasks related to that specific request.
    
    **Fix:** Updated the cancel method to unlink associated activities.
  
    **Note on Conflict Prevention:** To avoid a UserError/MissingRecord when canceling directly from the activity widget (where the interface attempts to delete the activity immediately after calling the cancel method), a context flag skip_sign_activity_unlink was introduced. This ensures that if the activity is already handling its own deletion, the backend doesn't "double-delete" it.

Task: 5989542

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#111592

This commit aims to provide better support for contract changes that happen in the middle of a pay period.
It has a few impacting changes, notably:

1) Payslip calculation sequencing
As of now, all payslips of a same payrun have their line calculated all at once. While this is better for performances, it has a negative effect when a single employee has multiple payslips in the same payrun.
In such cases, we may want or need for the payslips to know what was already calculated in the same payrun to avoid overpaying contributions or allowances that have caps.

To solve this issue, we now group payslips by employee, sort them chronologically, and evaluate them in horizontal "layers":
  - Layer 1: Computes the 1st payslip for ALL employees simultaneously.
  - Layer 2: Computes the 2nd payslip for the subset of employees who have one, etc

2) More tools in HK payroll to support these cases The payslip rules now have a `l10n_hk_payrun_totals` dict that contains the total amount already reported in previous payslips of a same payruns for a selection of rules that needs it. We also provides a `worked_days_prorata_rate` which gives the ratio of worked days vs unworked days in a month for cases where we need to adjust amounts based on that ratio.

3) Rule updates
The last part of the fix requires some updates in a few rules that are fixed amounts/not based on the wage and ends up being counted double in our use case. These rules will now take into account already computed amounts as said above to avoid going over the limit.
In most cases it will only affect that specific use case, with a small exception for fixed mpf voluntary contributions, which have been updated to be prorated based on the worked days in the month.

To reproduce the issue:

- Setup tax periodicity to "trimester"
- Create a report evaluating something with previous_tax_period date_scope (real cases tend to do that for carryover ; see monthly Italian tax report for an example)
- Create the appropriate data so that in the current trimester, the report line evaluates to 42, and to 1 in the previous trimester
- Open the report for the second month of the trimester => The line has value 42, while it should have 1.

This happens because the date bounds for previous_tax_period were computed too naively, considering the date_from was always the first day of the tax period. The first day of the second month of the trimester, it's not the case, and we return the period boundaries of the day before that day. That day is the last day of the first month of the trimester, but belongs to the same trimester, so it's the same tax period. Therefore, we display the value of the current tax period, which is wrong.

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#111483
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#110504

[FIX] documents_account: sync all XML documents for account moves

Before this commit, the synchronization between accounting attachments and
the Documents app was incomplete regarding XML files (e.g., e-invoices, Peppol).

This caused several specific issues:
1. When creating an invoice via the Accounting upload interface, only the
   generated PDF was synced to the correct Documents folder, leaving the
   original XML file unsynced.
2. When creating an invoice from an existing file in the Documents app
   (via server action), the system correctly synced the generated PDF,
   but failed to move or sync the original XML source file to the
   target folder.
3. When receiving vendor bills via Peppol or other EDI networks, the proxy
   attaches the fetched XML to the `account.move` via an `ir.attachment` 
   write. Because this bypassed the existing sync filters, the Peppol XMLs 
   were never pushed to the Documents app.

This commit updates the `ir.attachment` logic in both `create` and `write`.
It ensures that whenever an XML file (mimetype `application/xml` or `text/xml`)
is attached to an `account.move`—regardless of the move type or whether it 
was uploaded manually or fetched via EDI—the document synchronization logic 
is triggered, properly linking and filing the XML alongside the PDF.

Task-5909245
Task-5917535

Issue
-----
When processing batches in barcode, scanning a BC with a different SN than the reserved one does not lead to creating a new lot in stock. The reserved one is still the one getting taken regardless of setting.

Steps to reproduce
-----
- Enable GS1 nomenclature, lots & batches
- Go to Inventory > Configuration > Operation Types > Delivery Orders
    - Enable Lots/Serial Numbers > Create New
- Create a product
    - Barcode 23456789012344
    - Tracked by SN
    - 1 in stock (SN 1234)
- Create a delivery for the product and add it to a batch
- Open the batch in barcode
- Scan 012345678901234410BATCHSN1
- Confirm the delviery
- Go back to the picking and see the lines' details

> The line used the reserved SN

Cause
-----
The existing line gets matched in `_findLine`

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/45d3a537c3b2eaccee425d959e89d26229e376cd/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L1085

because none of the conditions before

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/45d3a537c3b2eaccee425d959e89d26229e376cd/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L1402

get matched. This is unexpected but necessary for batches, as it ensures barcode correctly swaps to the correct picking in the batch. If the line was not matched we would be creating a new line in the same picking than the last scanned line, regardless of which picking the reservation is made in.

Because a line is matched, we have to force its' `lot_id` to `false` so that the new one gets created (`lot_name` is used for display but `lot_id` takes precedence).

-----
Ticket:
opw-5216921

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#109671

**Issue**:
Choosing a PO among several alternative POs resets the price of all the unselected ones.

**Steps to reproduce**:
- Create a storable product with a standard price of 1
- Add two vendors for a quantity of 1 with a unit price 1.1 and 1.2
- Create a PO for one vendor with 10 units at price 1.3
- Create an alternative PO for the other vendor with 10 units at price 1.4
- Compare the POs and choose the first one
-> The unit price of the second one (1.4) is reset to the standard price (1)

**Cause**:
When choosing a PO, the quantities of alternative POs are reset to 0:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/1b5072c0e0af6be340389e0c429ca370d8dc169d/addons/purchase_requisition/models/purchase.py#L317-L321
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/1b5072c0e0af6be340389e0c429ca370d8dc169d/addons/purchase_requisition/models/purchase.py#L304
which will trigger the `_compute_price_unit_and_date_planned_and_name`.
Since the quantity no longer matches any vendor, no seller is found (10 on the pol and 1 in vendor):
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f5a24b10cb3a4cf32c6c185df65f3099c8da3ff1/addons/purchase/models/purchase.py#L1198-L1203
but `unavailable_seller` is found, since the quantity is not in the search
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f5a24b10cb3a4cf32c6c185df65f3099c8da3ff1/addons/purchase/models/purchase.py#L1210-L1215
As a result, the price is recomputed using `standard_price`:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f5a24b10cb3a4cf32c6c185df65f3099c8da3ff1/addons/purchase/models/purchase.py#L1218

**Solution**
Cancel unselected alternative POs instead of resetting their quantities to 0.
This avoids triggering `_compute_price_unit_and_date_planned_and_name` and preserves original prices.

opw-[6022718](https://www.odoo.com/web#id=6022718&view_type=form&model=project.task)

Before this commit, confirming a Sale Order that creates a Manufacturing Order for a product with a large BoM could take several minutes when `purchase_mrp` was installed.

The slowdown comes from `mrp.bom.line._get_cost_share()`, which is called for every line during a BoM explosion. When no explicit `cost_share` is set, the method recomputes the list of eligible BoM lines and checks whether any of them has a manual cost share.

That computation depends only on the BoM and the product variant, but it is recomputed for every exploded line during `mrp.bom.explode()`. This causes a full BoM scan to be repeated for every single line.

This commit introduces a contextual cache, initialized in `mrp.bom.explode()`, to store that metadata. We compute it once and reuse it for all lines of the same (BoM, variant) within the same explosion.

### Benchmark:

| BoM lines | Before PR | After PR |
| --- | ---: | ---: |
| 100 | 3.747s | 1.094s |
| 300 | 26.554s | 2.826s |
| 600 | 85.378s | 5.299s |
| 992 | 229.246s | 9.068s |

opw-6017626

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

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install the `l10n_es_reports` module and switch to the `ES company`.
- Go to Invoices and create an invoice with taxes, then confirm it.
- Navigate to Accounting > Reporting > Tax Report.
- From the smart button, select `Report: Tax Report (Mod 390) (ES)` and 
  choose the year as `This Financial Year`.
- Download the `BOE` file using the dropdown and fill the wizard fields 
  (e.g., Natural Person – Name: Test, Principal activity: Test, Activity Code: 12345).
- Upload the generated .txt file to the AEAT portal. (AEAT credentials are required)

**Observation:**
AEAT rejects the file with:
`Caracteres no válidos '4. Representante - Personas Jurídicas - Represent. 1 - Fecha Poder (DDMMAAAA)'`

**Root cause:**
At [1], when `judicial_person_procuration_date` is `false`, an empty string is 
written to the BOE file, resulting in blank spaces in the exported file. This 
does not comply with AEAT’s required numeric format and causes the file 
to be rejected.

**Fix:**
This commit ensures the file contains '00000000' when 
`judicial_person_procuration_date` is false, complying 
with AEAT numeric format requirements.

[1]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/45d3a537c3b2eaccee425d959e89d26229e376cd/l10n_es_reports/models/aeat_tax_reports.py#L1696

opw-5995290

\* = test_website_modules

### Issue:
When accessing a record from the website without logging in, a `404`
error occurs if a public record rule filters records by website related
domain, for example `[('website_id', '=', website.id)]`.

### Steps to reproduce:
- Install the 'website_blog' module and create at least one website.
- Enable debug mode.
- Go to Settings > Technical > Database Structure > Models.
- Open the `blog.post` model.
- Go to the 'Record Rules' tab.
- For the record 'Blog Post: public: published only', change the domain
  from `[('website_published', '=', True)]` to
  `[('website_id', '=', website.id)]`.
- Go to Website > Configuration > Blogs.
- Open a blog (e.g., Travel).
- Select 'My Website' in its 'Website' field.
- Open 'My Website' without logging in.
- Click on the 'Blog' menu and the blog listing will appear correctly.
- Try opening a blog post and a `404` error occurs.

### Reason:
<pre>
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                    Request Lifecycle                    │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                                                         │
│  User Request (not logged in)                           │
│       ↓                                                 │
│  ┌──────────────────────────────────────┐               │
│  │ 1. _pre_dispatch                     │               │
│  │    ↓                                 │               │
│  │    check_access_rule                 │               │
│  │    ↓                                 │               │
│  │    _eval_context (compute domain)    │               │
│  │    ↓                                 │               │
│  │    get_request_website()             │               │
│  │    ↓                                 │               │
│  │    request.website = None            │  ← Issue      │
│  │    ↓                                 │               │
│  │    Domain evaluation FAILS           │               │
│  │    ↓                                 │               │
│  │    Access DENIED → 404 Error         │               │
│  └──────────────────────────────────────┘               │
│       ↓                                                 │
│  ┌──────────────────────────────────────┐               │
│  │ 2. _frontend_pre_dispatch            │               │
│  │    (NEVER REACHED)                   │               │
│  │    ↓                                 │               │
│  │    request.website initialized ✓     │  ← Too Late   │
│  └──────────────────────────────────────┘               │
│                                                         │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
</pre>
Because `request.website` is initialized later in
`_frontend_pre_dispatch`, access rules evaluated earlier in
`_pre_dispatch` cannot rely on website context. As a result, record
rules depending on `website_id` are evaluated before `request.website`
is available, incorrectly denying access to public records.

### Fix:
Avoid totally relying on `get_request_website` during access rule
evaluation. Use the `request.is_frontend` attribute as a fallback, which
is set earlier, to detect frontend requests and ensure correct access
handling.

task-[4758311](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project/974/tasks/4758311)

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

**Step to reproduce:**
- install "l10n_es_edi_verifactu_pos"
- setup "ePOS printer" for a pos
- open pos and settle a order below 400$
- notice we get l10n_es_edi_verifactu_qr_code in our receipt
- click on "Print receipt"
- repeat above steps for one more order

**Observation:**
- when we print the second order receipt, the QR still points to 1 order invoice

**Issue:**
- [getCacheKey](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0cee3350df09b06af77c879f0eba74bf6a8dd2c9/addons/point_of_sale/static/src/app/utils/html-to-image.js#L351C10-L355
) was trimming query strings when generating cache keys. URLs like:
`  http://localhost:9000/report/barcode/?barcode_type=QR&value=... `
were reduced to:
`  http://localhost:9000/report/barcode/`

- As a result, different QR code requests shared the same cache key. Subsequent requests reused the previously cached image instead of fetching a new one, producing incorrect QR codes for different orders.

**Solution:**
Add an `includeQueryParams` flag to `resourceToDataURL` so the full URL, including query parameters, is used as the cache key when needed. This ensures unique QR code URLs are cached and fetched correctly.

opw-5455807


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