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

It often occurs that gemini responses come back empty without anything to show to the users. Specifically, the response object has content but the "parts" are empty - the place were you either get a function call or a message to the user by the LLM.

Prior to this commit, when this occured, we didn't perform any explicit handling. We would always just return what the LLM responded with, which when empty would be nothing. UX wise, it would seem like something broke because the user would basically get no reply.

In this commit, we add a retry mechanism in `_request_llm_google` of `llm_api_service.py`, where if we get no response, we increase the thinking budget of the next request to 512 and try again. 512 tokens were chosen completely arbitrarily - anecdotally, the model should use around 300 thinking tokens for its tasks so 512 should be enough. After 3 unsuccessful tries, we send a failure response to the user.

Task-5959805

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#111228
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#108755

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

**Behavior:**
Currently when generating the 281.50 report the pdf ends up taking an extra page filled only with header and footer, the page appears when creating the report for a natural person and adding a national number.

The solution is not to fully prevent the report form being more than 1 page long, as some informations could span over more than one line which would make the pdf need an extra page. But to shave a few milimeters so that by default when filled with standard informations the pdf appears cleaner.

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Log to a Belgian company
- Create a contact that is a person
- Add the 281.50 tag to them
- Create a credit note for any positive amount for that person and set the date to the previous year
- Make sure the account used in the credit note has any 281.50 x tag assigned
- Go to Accounting/Reporting/Open 325 forms and create a new form for the year indicated in the credit note
- When generating the 281.50 PDF you'll seee it span over 2 pages if you have filled the national number of the contact

opw-5930339

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#111310

Create an interactive PDF form in Adobe Acrobat containing a standard Text Field (/FT /Tx).

- Fill the text field with a value (e.g., "John Doe") and save the PDF.
- (Note: Adobe Acrobat will often automatically assign an Appearance State (/AS /N) to this text field).
- Upload this PDF to the Sign app.

**Current behavior:**
The text field's string value is ignored and replaced with a checkmark (✓).

**Expected behavior:**
The text field should correctly render the string value that the user entered.

**Cause of the issue:**
In the _draw_field_value function, the parser checks if an /AS (Appearance State) tag exists and is not set to /Off. If true, it assumes the field is a checked box and draws a chr(0x2713).
However, it fails to check the Field Type (/FT) first. Because Adobe Acrobat sometimes assigns /AS tags to standard Text Fields (/FT /Tx), we misinterprets these populated text fields as checked buttons.

**Solution:**
This PR fixes the issue safely for stable versions across two commits:

[REF]: Extracts the value extraction logic into a dedicated _get_field_value helper method to allow isolated unit testing without requiring a canvas or physical PDF files. No behavioral changes in this commit.

[FIX]: Wraps the /AS check within an if field_type == "/Btn": condition. This ensures only actual Checkboxes and Radio Buttons render as checkmarks, allowing Text Fields to fall through and properly return their /V string values. 

Task: 6018260

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#110292

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

The interaction for filling the dynamic content of dynamic snippets
did not run inside the iframe to preview the snippet to add. This is
not an issue for the initial dynamic snippet, as they are filled with
fake content. But when saving a custom snippet, the dynamic content is
cleared, and they seem empty when previewed. This is the case since the
[website builder refactor] as the previous builder re-used the preview
of the initial snippet.

This commit adds the interaction to fill dynamic content in the preview
iframe, and changes the interaction to avoid emptying the fake content
from initial dynamic snippets during preview.

Steps to reproduce:
- Open website builder
- Add a dynamic snippet (for example "Events")
- Save the snippet as a custom snippet
- Click on "Custom" snippet category
- Bug: The preview for the custom snippet does not have the dynamic part
(there is no event, just the title)

[website builder refactor]: 9fe45e2b7ddbbfd0445ffe25a859e67a316d02b2

task-5427353

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#110696
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#108912

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

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

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

How to reproduce :
- Create a product
- Create an attribute with a value set to "free text"
- Add 2 different vendors to the purchase tab of the product with different Vendor Code and/or Vendor Name
- Put Dropship as the route for the product to create a PO on a SO confirmation
- Create a SO with that product
- Confirm the SO and go to the PO
- Change the vendor in the SO

The problem :
The Vendor Code and/or Vendor Name does not change correctly in the product description

Why :
The way the description generation for a change in a purchase order line works as follows : Create a collection of default descriptions based on the product and the different vendors. If the collection contains the current description, it means the description was not changed by the user and it can be modified. This is done to prevent resetting a custom description made by an user.

This logic is pretty broken because the code that generate the description when going from a PO to a SO and the code that generate the description when changing the PO partner are different. This makes it so the current description is almost never found in the list of default descriptions.

It looks tempting to try to "resynchronize" those part of the code so the description generation is the same in both cases. This would be done by overriding the _get_product_purchase_description method in the purchase_stock module and using the product_description_variants field. Sadly, this does not work because it conflicts with the purchase_product_matrix module and its own override of that method.

The fix that I implemented checks that the Vendor Code and Name are the right one every time the description is computed following a change.

opw-5888233

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#254969
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#247330

*= im_livechat, portal, test_discuss_full

**Steps to reproduce:**

• Install the mail_group module
• Open Discuss
• Go to the History tab
• Add a reaction on a message that has model `mail.group`  
• Throws an error

The error occurs because the `mail.group` model does not implement the `_get_allowed_access_params()` method, which is invoked during the process here. Actually, the "add reaction" button should not be shown on messages whose model
does not inherit from mail.thread.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/d12c1e07727f9b04cd2be2e7dac1ec3af49cb637/addons/mail/models/mail_message.py#L579

Desired behavior after PR is merged:

This PR fixes the issue by hiding the "add reaction" button on messages with
models that don’t inherit from mail.thread, such as mail.group.

enterprise: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/111271
Task-5098050

[Reference](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/aa2c4251-fd1f-4734-a62c-9fc80dd5f587)

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#218615

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

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