The bank reconciliation view was freezing on large databases (50k+ invoices,
90k+ journal entries), making it impossible to expand lines, filter, or interact
with the view in any way. Attempting to open a line would sometimes result in a
timeout.

**Root cause:** The `reconciledLineName` getter was called multiple times per
render cycle — once in `t-foreach` and again in the `t-if` condition. Since OWL
re-evaluates the template on every reactive state change, this created an O(n×m)
computation loop (n renders × m statement lines) that overwhelmed the browser.

**Fix:** Cache the result in OWL reactive state via a dedicated
`_computeReconciledLineName()` method, called once on setup and reactively via
`useEffect` when `line_ids.records` changes. The template is updated to store
`Object.entries(reconciledLineName)` in a `t-set` variable to avoid rebuilding
the array on every iteration.

| Metric | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Longest blocking task | 15 091 ms | 5 118 ms |
| Total blocking time | 74 147 ms | 22 481 ms |
| Avg. click response | 2 163 ms | 28 ms |
| Max click response | 14 305 ms | 222 ms |
| Total microtasks executed | 9 917 | 32 484 |

opw-5879798

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#111059
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#107135

When merging pdfs, if there is an error when meging those pdfs (due to a malformed PDF for example), the UserError that should be shown to the user is not due to an error in the arguments given to the handle_error function.

The aim here is to keep the same function signature and edit the signature of the local function used when a custom_handle_error was defined and edit the function itself.

The error message appeared when I was working on a task to change a
test and tested it on master and got the following stacktrace:
```
...
  File "/home/odoo/Desktop/src/odoo/odoo/addons/base/models/ir_actions_report.py", line 788, in _merge_pdfs
    handle_error(error=e, error_stream=stream)
TypeError: IrActionsReport._handle_merge_pdfs_error() missing 1 required positional argument: 'self'
```

Discovered during : task-3603619

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#255173
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#211611

# Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses

In Point of Sale with ZATCA enabled (l10n_sa_edi_pos), invoicing is enforced on all orders.
In 18.0, settlement and deposit flows were both correctly excluded from mandatory ZATCA invoicing using the is_settling_account flag.

From saas-18.2, the Settle Due flow was refactored to include a dedicated settlement product line. 
As a result, is_settling_account now only covers account deposit flows, and is no longer sufficient to identify Settle Due orders.

# Current behavior before PR

With ZATCA enabled on saas-18.2:

- Account deposit flows are still correctly excluded from mandatory invoicing using is_settling_account.
- Settle Due orders are no longer detected by this flag and are treated as standard sales because they now contain order lines.
- This causes ZATCA invoice enforcement to be applied to Settle Due orders, even though the original invoice was already reported.
- Additionally, mixed orders combining settlement lines and new sale items would require partial ZATCA reporting, which is not supported.

# Desired behavior after PR is merged

After this fix:

- ZATCA invoice enforcement is skipped for account deposit flows using the existing is_settling_account flag.
- Even if invoice is checked, the invoice is not sent to ZATCA
- Settle Due orders are correctly identified using the isSettleDueLine() check on order lines and excluded from mandatory ZATCA invoicing.
- Mixed settlement and sale orders are explicitly blocked for ZATCA to avoid inconsistent or partial reporting.

This restores the intended settlement behavior from 18.0 while adapting it to the refactored Settle Due flow in saas-18.2.

task-5144679
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#254195
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#244712

### Issue:
When we try to print the field service report on multiple tasks, some with worksheets, then everything is duplicated in the PDF.

### Steps to reproduce:
- Install `industry_fsm` and `sale`
- Create two tasks with the same customer
- Add timesheet, products and save a worksheet on one of them (the goal is to have titles on two different pages)
- In list view select both tasks and click Report > Field Service Report
- The downloaded PDF has the report twice

### Cause:
When printing for several records then `_render_qweb_pdf_prepare_streams()` tries to split the document. If the document has more pages than the number of records [we fetch the "Outlines"](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/55a58571fbfa6a6bb0edacd6f9676382cc23630b/odoo/addons/base/models/ir_actions_report.py#L938-L954). These are the biggest sections in the document. In our case these sections are the `<h2>` tags, as there are no `<h1>`: [the main title](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/6c4b88a1dfe245a63a424e3f51ff803e51ccde61/industry_fsm/report/worksheet_custom_report_templates.xml#L31-L33), [the Timesheet section title](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/6c4b88a1dfe245a63a424e3f51ff803e51ccde61/industry_fsm/report/worksheet_custom_report_templates.xml#L39), etc. Then we check the pages where these titles are displayed; if we get the same number of pages as the number of records, we use them to split the report.

If not, then we [render the report for each record individually](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/55a58571fbfa6a6bb0edacd6f9676382cc23630b/odoo/addons/base/models/ir_actions_report.py#L974-L976), add them to `collected_streams`. Then add the initial report generated on the recordset and return.

These streams are later merged into one, which explains the duplication:
- Task 1 report individually generated
- Task 2 report individually generated
- Report of the recordset containing the two first reports

### Solution:
The issue was introduced by [this commit](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/7fc1ebd4466a2d9b4a48dfe86332b5844026c4fc) which implements the individual generation without returning. So the individual documents will always be followed by the recordset document.

This commit adds the return directly after the individual reports generation.

opw-6032935

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#255581

\* = 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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#255708
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#213143

When creating a backorder because of missing product, if there is an extra product received it will create a return also create a return for that product.

### Steps to reproduce:

* Create and confirm a purchase ordre for 2 products (A & B)
* Add a product C to the picking order and reduce the quantity of product B received
* Validate the picking ordre
* Create a backorder
* Go back on the PO and open the linked pickings 
-> There is delivery linked for product C

### Observation:

When processing the backorder, it will sync the delivery and the PO with _action_synch_order where it will add the new product to the PO: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/1a62c4333de61a4e1358ef8e229b2e0f5a3e9826/addons/purchase_stock/models/stock_move.py#L88-L89 
The create that is started by the creation of the new POL will trigger _create_or_update_picking that will create a stock move and a picking: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/2855f0f2b0ffbc340e2af4785dde5bf465579ee8/addons/purchase_stock/models/purchase_order_line.py#L97 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/2855f0f2b0ffbc340e2af4785dde5bf465579ee8/addons/purchase_stock/models/purchase_order_line.py#L197-L198

opw-5868172

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#255640
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#248433

Before this commit, the quality option would not work properly for images with a shape applied by default. After changing an option, the DOM would be updated and the slider disappeared because the image format would not be considered valid anymore.

Steps to reproduce the issue :
- Drop a snippet with an image with a shape (.s_cta_mockup, ...)
- Do one of the following:
    - Move the quality slider
    - Change an shape option
=> The Quality slider disappeared.

If the user replaces an image with a png, sets the format to "webp" and adds a shape, the dataset would have the following :
- format-mimetype: the value of the format option ("image/webp")
- mimetype-before-conversion: the original format ("image/png")
- mimetype: the mimetype of an image with shape ("image/svg+xml")

We first evaluate "data-format-mimetype", as it indicates the current format of the image (if it was changed by the user). Otherwise, we check "data-mimetype-before-conversion" since the mimetype for an image with shape is always "image/svg+xml" and doesn't correspond to the real image format. Finally, default to getMimetype to avoid issue for images on which nothing no option was changed.

task-5358952

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#240360

Steps to produce:
---
- Install `purchase_stock` module.
- Inventory > Configuration > Settings > Warehouse > enable `Multi-Step Routes`.
- Go to Configuration > Warehouse Management > Warehouses.
- Open `YourCompany` record.
- Click on Routes > open `Buy` > enable `Products`.
- Return to `YourCompany` and disable `Buy to Resupply`.

Issue:
---
- After disabling `Buy to Resupply`, the option is automatically re-enabled.

Root cause:
---
- In [1], `buy_to_resupply` is set to true if either buy route is product selectable OR the current warehouse is included in buy route warehouses.
- In the `_inverse_buy_to_resupply` method, unchecking the flag only unlinks the warehouse from the route. However, if `product_selectable` is still enabled, the compute logic will continue to set the field back to true.

Solution:
---
- `warehouse.buy_to_resupply` is now set to True only when the warehouse ID is present in the buy route’s warehouse_ids.

[1] https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/aeaace7c70b7ac3db68f188c9c517f1ff849e55d/addons/purchase_stock/models/stock.py#L57

opw-5476302
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#250360

### Issue:
When we try to print the field service report on multiple tasks, some with worksheets, then everything is duplicated in the PDF.

### Steps to reproduce:
- Install `industry_fsm` and `sale`
- Create two tasks with the same customer
- Add timesheet, products and save a worksheet on one of them (the goal is to have titles on two different pages)
- In list view select both tasks and click Report > Field Service Report
- The downloaded PDF has the report twice

### Cause:
When printing for several records then `_render_qweb_pdf_prepare_streams()` tries to split the document. If the document has more pages than the number of records [we fetch the "Outlines"](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/55a58571fbfa6a6bb0edacd6f9676382cc23630b/odoo/addons/base/models/ir_actions_report.py#L938-L954). These are the biggest sections in the document. In our case these sections are the `<h2>` tags, as there are no `<h1>`: [the main title](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/6c4b88a1dfe245a63a424e3f51ff803e51ccde61/industry_fsm/report/worksheet_custom_report_templates.xml#L31-L33), [the Timesheet section title](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/6c4b88a1dfe245a63a424e3f51ff803e51ccde61/industry_fsm/report/worksheet_custom_report_templates.xml#L39), etc. Then we check the pages where these titles are displayed; if we get the same number of pages as the number of records, we use them to split the report.

If not, then we [render the report for each record individually](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/55a58571fbfa6a6bb0edacd6f9676382cc23630b/odoo/addons/base/models/ir_actions_report.py#L974-L976), add them to `collected_streams`. Then add the initial report generated on the recordset and return.

These streams are later merged into one, which explains the duplication:
- Task 1 report individually generated
- Task 2 report individually generated
- Report of the recordset containing the two first reports

### Solution:
The issue was introduced by [this commit](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/7fc1ebd4466a2d9b4a48dfe86332b5844026c4fc) which implements the individual generation without returning. So the individual documents will always be followed by the recordset document.

This commit adds the return directly after the individual reports generation.

opw-6032935

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#255581

\* = 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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#255708
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#213143

Before this commit, the quality option would not work properly for images with a shape applied by default. After changing an option, the DOM would be updated and the slider disappeared because the image format would not be considered valid anymore.

Steps to reproduce the issue :
- Drop a snippet with an image with a shape (.s_cta_mockup, ...)
- Do one of the following:
    - Move the quality slider
    - Change an shape option
=> The Quality slider disappeared.

If the user replaces an image with a png, sets the format to "webp" and adds a shape, the dataset would have the following :
- format-mimetype: the value of the format option ("image/webp")
- mimetype-before-conversion: the original format ("image/png")
- mimetype: the mimetype of an image with shape ("image/svg+xml")

We first evaluate "data-format-mimetype", as it indicates the current format of the image (if it was changed by the user). Otherwise, we check "data-mimetype-before-conversion" since the mimetype for an image with shape is always "image/svg+xml" and doesn't correspond to the real image format. Finally, default to getMimetype to avoid issue for images on which nothing no option was changed.

task-5358952

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#240360

Steps to reproduce:
- Enable "Expiration Dates" in Inventory settings
- Create a storable product "P1"
  - Add 10 units with "Lot 1"
- Enable expiration dates on product P1
- Add 10 units with "Lot 2" and set an expiration date
- Create a delivery for 10 units of P1
  - Mark as "To Do"
  - Open the move line

-> "Lot 1" is automatically reserved

- Change the lot from "Lot 1" to "Lot 2" -> The expiration date is not updated automatically

- Save and reopen the move line -> The expiration date is correctly set

- Change again to "Lot 1"
- Save and reopen the move line -> The expiration date is not reset and incorrectly keeps the value from "Lot 2"

Cause:
The expiration date was only computed based on `lot_id`, ignoring the
`quant_id` used during reservation. Additionally, the value was not
reset when switching to a lot without an expiration date.

Solution:
- Add `quant_id` to the compute dependencies
- Compute the expiration date based on `quant_id.lot_id`
- Explicitly set an expiration date to today when the
use_expiration_date product is set to True and the lot doesn't have an
expiration date.

Result:
The expiration date is now correctly updated and cleared when changing lots on stock move lines.

opw-5999294

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#254610

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#255686
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#254868

Since its introduction (https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/76734), the "mail.catchall.domain.allowed" system parameter is normally sanitized by `_sanitize_allowed_domains` when using `set_param`.

But the method is not run when the system parameter is created manually, for example through the UI, because the current conditional logic is not triggered for write and create call.

This can be an issue if for example the use submits this value: "domain1.com, domain2.com,domain3.com"

The comma seperated list will only be split by ',', meaning that the second element is " domain2.com" (space character in front). As such, that domain will not be used as expected, since most flows using that data will end up comparing "domain2.com" vs " domain2.com", and not considering it a match.

Before this fix:
Create new record in System parameters with
key = "mail.catchall.domain.allowed"
value = "domain1.com, domain2.com,domain3.com"
-> after save, value == "domain1.com, domain2.com,domain3.com"

After this fix:
-> after save, value == "domain1.com,domain2.com,domain3.com"

* fixed 19.1 FW

OPW-5505414

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#244279

*= 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#255744
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#218615

### Steps to reproduce:
	- Install the l10n_ae_hr_payroll module.
	- Configure at least two employees, who'll use the UAE Monthly pay structure.
	- On at least one of the employees, set the work entry source to attendance.
	- Register a paid leave time off entry, for the employee whose work entry source is set to attendance.
	- Compute a payslip batch using the UAE Monthly pay structure.
	- Go to the payslip of the employee with the work entry source set to attendance and compute the sheet again.
	- The 'Paid Leave' salary rule results, will change given that the computation of the field l10n_ae_hourly_wage is different when the computation is done for batches and individually.

### Cause:
In 'Paid Leave' rule we use l10n_ae_hourly_wage to compute its result and while computing this field we use self.worked_days_line_ids instead of record inside the loop. This leads to an issue when self has more than one payslip it will take into account all the worked days for each payslip for different employees

### Fix:
We use record instead of self to avoid taking other payslips into consideration while computing the hourly wage.

opw-5979631

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#111280

**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/odoo#255314
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#254618

**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#111632
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#111108

**Steps to reproduce:**
* Install the `quality_control` module.
* Create a storable product.
* Configure a Quality Control Point:
  * Set Control per : Quantity.
  * Set Operation Type to Receipts.
  * Set Product to the created product.
* Create a Receipt for the product with a demand of  5 units.
* Confirm the receipt and mark it as To Do.
* Click on the Quality Check button.
* Click on Fail and set the failed quantity to 3.
* Click on Confirm.

**Observed behavior:**
* A new stock move is created for the failed quantity.
* The original move is split incorrectly:
  * First move: 2 `product_uom_qty` and 2 `quantity`.
  * Second move: 2 `product_uom_qty` and 3 `quantity`.
* The failed move has a demand of **2** instead of **3**.

**Cause:**
* Clicking on *Quality Check* triggers `check_quality`, 
which opens the wizard `action_open_quality_check_wizard`: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/90567af2703a3928c35814a0c4862b4cd98b8432/quality_control/models/stock_picking.py#L79-L82
* Clicking on *Fail* triggers `do_fail`, opening the confirmation wizard: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/90567af2703a3928c35814a0c4862b4cd98b8432/quality_control/wizard/quality_check_wizard.py#L85-L88
* Clicking on *Confirm* triggers `confirm_fail`, which calls `_move_line_to_failure_location`: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/90567af2703a3928c35814a0c4862b4cd98b8432/quality_control/wizard/quality_check_wizard.py#L97
* In `_move_line_to_failure_location`, a new stock move 
is created for the failed quantity: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/90567af2703a3928c35814a0c4862b4cd98b8432/quality_control/models/quality.py#L480
* The demand quantity is computed using the minimum of the 
failed quantity and the move line quantity.
* This leads to an incorrect demand of *2* instead of *3*.
* However, the move line quantity was already reduced by the failed quantity: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/90567af2703a3928c35814a0c4862b4cd98b8432/quality_control/models/quality.py#L472

**Fix:**
* Ensure that partial failures properly split stock moves with 
correct `product_uom_qty` and `quantity` values.

---

opw-5492095

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#112005
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#107493

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#111799
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#109671

Issue:
---
Duplicate product template creates a published product which is not
expected. Duplicated products should be unpublished by default.

#### Steps to reproduce:
1- Create a product and add a eCommerce category.
2- Without publishing the product duplicate it.

Even though the original product is not published, the duplicated one
is published.
Expected: Regardless of published state of original product, the
duplicated product should not be published.

Cause:
---
This regression is introduced in https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/66218 to create a `is_published`
product if `public_categ_ids` is set. However this was only supposed
to be when creating a new product using form. It makes the create
to ignore `is_published` default value even in copy.

Fix:
---
We can make sure if `is_published` is in create vals, don't force
`is_published` to be set True.

However, as `copy=False` in `is_published` field definition, it
won't be in vals in copy. By overriding `copy_data`, we can ensure
vals is present in copy.

#### Note:
`product_barcodelookup` doesn't depend on `website_sale`. However,
`product_categ_ids` is used in this module. In the test for the
same case we only run the test if the module is installed.
This would be fine as this is a post-install test.

opw-6014789

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#111340

4d844b7f3b570d7c3d978c6f10c351c48553df0b was a backport that was developed when demo data was installed during CI.

However, time has passed, and demo isn't installed anymore causing the following:

```python
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/data/build/enterprise/sale_amazon/tests/test_amazon.py", line 541, in test_sync_orders_replacement
    "partner_id": self.env.ref("base.res_partner_1").id,
  File "/data/build/odoo/odoo/api.py", line 596, in ref
    res_model, res_id = self['ir.model.data']._xmlid_to_res_model_res_id(
  File "/data/build/odoo/odoo/addons/base/models/ir_model.py", line 2215, in _xmlid_to_res_model_res_id
    return self._xmlid_lookup(xmlid)
  File "<decorator-gen-43>", line 2, in _xmlid_lookup
  File "/data/build/odoo/odoo/tools/cache.py", line 104, in lookup
    value = d[key] = self.method(*args, **kwargs)
  File "/data/build/odoo/odoo/addons/base/models/ir_model.py", line 2208, in _xmlid_lookup
    raise ValueError('External ID not found in the system: %s' % xmlid)
ValueError: External ID not found in the system: base.res_partner_1
```

This commit creates a new partner on the fly instead.

runbot-241943

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#112131

Since its introduction (https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/76734), the "mail.catchall.domain.allowed" system parameter is normally sanitized by `_sanitize_allowed_domains` when using `set_param`.

But the method is not run when the system parameter is created manually, for example through the UI, because the current conditional logic is not triggered for write and create call.

This can be an issue if for example the use submits this value: "domain1.com, domain2.com,domain3.com"

The comma seperated list will only be split by ',', meaning that the second element is " domain2.com" (space character in front). As such, that domain will not be used as expected, since most flows using that data will end up comparing "domain2.com" vs " domain2.com", and not considering it a match.

Before this fix:
Create new record in System parameters with
key = "mail.catchall.domain.allowed"
value = "domain1.com, domain2.com,domain3.com"
-> after save, value == "domain1.com, domain2.com,domain3.com"

After this fix:
-> after save, value == "domain1.com,domain2.com,domain3.com"

OPW-5505414

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#244279

### Steps to reproduce
------------------
- Install `l10n_ae` module.
- Go to *Settings → Countries* and rename the country "United Arab Emirates" (e.g. change it to "UAE").
- Upgrade the `l10n_ae` module.

### Issue
-----
The file `l10n_ae/data/res.bank.csv` references the country using its name ("United Arab Emirates"). During the module upgrade, the CSV import tries to resolve the country relation using the country name. If the country name has been modified by the user (for example to "UAE"), the lookup fails and the module upgrade crashes with:

```python3
No matching record found for name 'United Arab Emirates' in field 'Country'
```

### Root Cause
----------
Using translatable/display names in CSV data is unreliable, as these values can be customized or translated by users.

### Fix
---
Replace the country name reference with the stable XMLID `base.ae` in `res.bank.csv`.

Using XMLIDs ensures consistent resolution regardless of name changes or translations.

opw-6015302
upg-3950261
tbg-2492

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

Current behavior before PR:

Desired behavior after PR is merged:




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

Steps to reproduce:
- Create a payment term with a 1% early discount and Reduced Tax Always (applied upon invoice)
- Add an invoice line with 0% taxes and try to submit it to Peppol
- Check the XML and you will see two errors (https://peppol-ap.test.odoo.com/filevalidator/validate):

[BR-E-01]-An Invoice that contains an Invoice line (BG-25), a Document level allowance (BG-20) or a Document level charge (BG-21) where the VAT category code (BT-151, BT-95 or BT-102) is "Exempt from VAT" shall contain exactly one VAT breakdown (BG-23) with the VAT category code (BT-118) equal to "Exempt from VAT".

[BR-E-08]-In a VAT breakdown (BG-23) where the VAT category code (BT-118) is "Exempt from VAT" the VAT category taxable amount (BT-116) shall equal the sum of Invoice line net amounts (BT-131) minus the sum of Document level allowance amounts (BT-92) plus the sum of Document level charge amounts (BT-99) where the VAT category codes (BT-151, BT-95, BT-102) are "Exempt from VAT".

When generating an invoice with an EPD (early payment discount), three lines are generated: the base line, a positive EPD line, and a negative EPD line. Only the base line and the positive EPD line have associated tax data.

What causes these errors is the fact that, in the Peppol XML, there are two TaxSubtotal nodes with the TaxCategory E (Exempt from tax). This happens because the negative EPD line is not concatenated with the base line and the positive EPD line. The concatenation is done in the method _ubl_add_tax_totals_nodes. The negative epd was not merged because it had a different tax exemption reason: Articles 226 items 11 to 15 Directive 2006/112/EN instead of Exempt from tax

This commit also fix another issue related to the AllowanceTotalAmount: If the allowance was [0.0] (and not [] which happens in case like the one above) the node was not added to the xml which resulted in the following error:

Sum of allowances on document level (BT-107) = Σ Document level allowance amount (BT-92).

opw-5896348



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

**Steps to reproduce:**
* Go to the Contacts app and create a new partner.
* In the VAT field, type a valid VAT number that includes the country code prefix (e.g., a Danish VAT like DK12345678).
* Trigger the autocomplete suggestion.

**Observed behavior:**
* The autocomplete by VAT does not return any results. It falls back to an autocomplete by name, which relies on the VAT string and also yields no results.

**Cause:**
* The `jsvat` frontend library requires the VAT string to include the country code prefix (e.g. DK12345678) to evaluate it correctly as a VAT number and trigger the VAT autocomplete flow.
* However, the backend IAP `search_by_vat` API expects the VAT number without the country prefix in the `query` field, as the country code is provided as a separate `query_country_code` parameter. Passing the full VAT string prevents the IAP service from finding matches.

**Fix:**
* Modified `autocomplete_by_vat` in `res_partner.py` to strip the `query_country_code` prefix from the `vat` string before passing it to the IAP API `search_by_vat`.
* The full, unmodified VAT string is still preserved for the `check_vies` fallback, as VIES requires the full country code prefix.

opw-5974250

### Steps to reproduce
------------------
- Install `l10n_pe` or `l10n_ec` module.
- Go to *Settings → Countries* and rename the country (e.g. "Peru" → "PERÚ",
  "Ecuador" → "ECUADOR").
- Upgrade the module.

### Issue
-----
The files `l10n_pe/data/res.bank.csv` and `l10n_ec/data/res.bank.csv`
reference countries using their names (e.g. "Peru", "Ecuador").

During module upgrade, the CSV import resolves many2one relations using
the country name. If the country name has been modified by the user,
the lookup fails and the module upgrade crashes with:


```python3
2026-03-06 23:48:11,112 27 CRITICAL db_3950261 odoo.service.server: Failed to initialize database `db_3950261`.
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/odoo/service/server.py", line 1510, in preload_registries
    registry = Registry.new(dbname, update_module=update_module, install_modules=config['init'], upgrade_modules=config['update'], reinit_modules=config['reinit'])
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/odoo/tools/func.py", line 88, in locked
    return func(inst, *args, **kwargs)
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/odoo/orm/registry.py", line 199, in new
    load_modules(
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/odoo/modules/loading.py", line 456, in load_modules
    load_module_graph(
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/odoo/modules/loading.py", line 216, in load_module_graph
    load_data(env, idref, mode, kind='data', package=package)
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/odoo/modules/loading.py", line 59, in load_data
    convert_file(env, package.name, filename, idref, mode, noupdate=kind == 'demo')
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/odoo/tools/convert.py", line 689, in convert_file
    convert_csv_import(env, module, pathname, fp.read(), idref, mode, noupdate)
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/odoo/tools/convert.py", line 754, in convert_csv_import
    raise Exception(env._(
Exception: Module loading l10n_pe failed: file l10n_pe/data/res.bank.csv could not be processed:
No matching record found for name 'Peru' in field 'Country'
No matching record found for name 'Peru' in field 'Country'
No matching record found for name 'Peru' in field 'Country'
No matching record found for name 'Peru' in field 'Country'
No matching record found for name 'Peru' in field 'Country'
No matching record found for name 'Peru' in field 'Country'
No matching record found for name 'Peru' in field 'Country'
No matching record found for name 'Peru' in field 'Country'
No matching record found for name 'Peru' in field 'Country'
No matching record found for name 'Peru' in field 'Country'
No matching record found for name 'Peru' in field 'Country'
No matching record found for name 'Peru' in field 'Country'
No matching record found for name 'Peru' in field 'Country'
No matching record found for name 'Peru' in field 'Country'
No matching record found for name 'Peru' in field 'Country'
No matching record found for name 'Peru' in field 'Country'
No matching record found for name 'Peru' in field 'Country'
No matching record found for name 'Peru' in field 'Country'

 select id,name,code from res_country where code='PE'
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------------+------+
| id  | name                                                                 | code |
|-----+----------------------------------------------------------------------+------|
| 173 | {"de_DE": "Peru", "en_US": "PERÚ", "es_ES": "PERÚ", "es_PE": "Perú"} | PE   |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------------+------+
```


### Root Cause
----------
Using translatable/display names in CSV data is not reliable, as these
values can be customized or translated.

### Fix
---
Replace country name references with stable XMLIDs:
- `base.pe` for Peru
- `base.ec` for Ecuador

Using XMLIDs ensures consistent resolution regardless of name changes
or translations.

opw-6015302
upg-3950261
tbg-2492

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

Current behavior before PR:

Desired behavior after PR is merged:




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