**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#112298
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#107493

Before this commit:
-------------------------
- In the Repair module, when a quality check for a product was marked as failed,
  Even after selecting a failure location, the failure location is not being set
  at the final product move.
- Instead of showing the selected failure location, the system displayed another
  location as the move destination after completing the repair process.

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------------
1. Install the quality_repair module.
2. In Quality, create a Control Point with:
   - Type = Pass-Fail
   - Control Per = Product or Operation
   - Set at least 1 Failure Location
3. Create a Repair Order for any product and start the repair process.
4. Perform a quality check, set it to Fail, and select a failure location.
5. Open the product moves, the destination location does not match the selected
   failure location.

Cause of the issue:
-------------------------
The failure location was not correctly assigned when a quality check failed
during the repair process because _move_to_failure_location determines the
destination location based on a stock picking (for receipts) or a production_id
(for manufacturing). In the Repair module, however, quality checks are linked to
a repair order, so the selected failure location was not set correctly.

After this commit:
-----------------------
- When a quality check fails in a repair order, the product’s destination
  location is correctly set to the failure location selected by the user.
- This ensures that, upon completion of the repair, the product is moved to the
  selected failure location, maintaining accurate inventory tracking and
  management.

Task ID:5254334

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#99235

**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#111658
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#99784

### 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#112229
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#111280

Steps to reproduce:
-----------------------------------------
1. Install `sale_purchase_project` and Accounting modules
2. From settings, enable Budget Management
3. Create a new product with type Service and enable Create a project on order.
4. Create and confirm the sale order with that product (note the name of created project)
5. Create and confirm purchase order as follows:
> In other information page, select the created project in the Project field
> Add the same product in POL, Set price unit price to 100 and remove any tax
6. Create and post a Vendor Bill for the same vendor as the PO as follows:
> Add Bill line with label downpayment
> Set the Analytic Distribution to the created project
> Set amount to 30
7. Go to the created purchase order > Click on bill matching
8. Select the downpayment bill > Add to PO > Select created PO > Add Down Payment
9. Go to the created project and open dashboard

Observation:
-----------------------------------------
In the Costs section:
Expected Cost: 130
To Bill: 100
Billed: 30

Expected values:
-----------------------------------------
Expected Cost: 100
To Bill: 70
Billed: 30

Issue:
----------------------------------------
In the following code:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/7e81c528ae350aab4432207f5655dcfadf6ec627/addons/project_purchase/models/project_project.py#L186-L190

When an invoice line was posted (billed), the code correctly subtracted the cost from `amount_invoiced` (making it negative, representing actual cost). But the billed amount was NOT removed from `amount_to_invoice`. This caused double counting the same cost appeared in both 'To Bill' and 'Billed'

Solution:
-----------------------------------------
Replaced the quantity-based calculation with a proper amount-based approach:
- Introduced `total_invoiced_amount` to track the sum of all non-refund invoice line amounts (both posted and draft).
- Modified the unbilled calculation to: `PO_amount - total_invoiced_amount`, ensuring that the unbilled portion accurately reflects what remains to be invoiced from the purchase order.
- Excluded refunds from `total_invoiced_amount` calculation because credit notes represent reversals of previous invoices, not consumption of the purchase order.  Refunds still correctly affect the "billed" and "to_bill" buckets through the normal invoice line processing.

This ensures the accounting principle is maintained: Total Expected Cost = Billed + To Bill = Purchase Order Amount

opw-5167734

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#245649

**Steps to reproduce:**
* Install *purchase_stock* and *sale_management* module.
* Go to *Inventory > Configuration > Settings*. Enable *Multi-Step Routes*.
* Go to *Inventory > Configuration > Warehouses*.
* Set the warehouse delivery flow to *Pick + Pack + Ship (3 steps)*.
* Create a new product. Under the *Purchase* tab, add a vendor.
* Create a sales order for this product with some quantity.
* Confirm the sales order. Validate all three generated transfers (*Pick*, *Pack*, *Ship*).
* Create a purchase order for the same vendor.
* In the purchase order line, click *Catalog* and search for the product.

**Observed behavior:**
* In the catalog view, the *Monthly Demand* is shown as *3x* 
the original sales order quantity instead of the actual demand.

**Cause:**
* *Monthly Demand* is a computed field using `_compute_monthly_demand`, 
which relies on `_get_monthly_demand_moves_location_domain()`.
* In a 3-step delivery flow, all related moves have a final location with usage set to *customer*.
* The domain condition: `('location_final_id.usage', 'in', ['customer', 'production'])`
counts all intermediate pickings.
* Additionally, the fallback condition: `[('location_final_id.warehouse_id', '!=', warehouse_id)]`
is always true because *customer* locations are not linked to a warehouse.
* As a result, all three pickings are counted, inflating the demand. See: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/6bbaea728dbcba49776e813c70dff649d041bdc9/addons/purchase_stock/models/product.py#L144-L157

**Fix:**
* Prevent counting intermediate pickings in 3-step delivery by 
restricting the domain to moves with `move_dest_ids = False`,
ensuring only the final move is considered for monthly demand computation.

---

opw-5453991

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#256228
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#244180

Steps to reproduce:
--------------------------
1. Install sale_timesheet
2. Create a quotation with a timesheet-based product
   - Set quantity = 3
   - Set UoM to Days (timesheet UoM is Hours)
3. Confirm the quotation and click on the smart button Recorded.
4. Record 16 hours of timesheets.
5. Create an invoice using a timesheet period (starting from SO date)
6. Check the invoice quantity

Issue:
-----------
The invoice quantity is incorrect. It assigns the hour value (e.g., 16) to the invoice line even though the SOL is configured in "Days" (expected 2 days for 16 hours).

Cause:
-----------
After this commit c3b6053, The `_recompute_qty_to_invoice` method sums timesheet `unit_amount` (in hours) and assigns it directly to `qty_to_invoice` without converting it to the sale order line UoM when a timesheet period is applied.

Solution:
---------------
Convert the aggregated timesheet hours into the SOL UoM before assigning it to qty_to_invoice.

opw-6024804





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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#255790
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#254273

# Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

From saas-18.3 onward, the pos_settle_due module introduced a new method to identify settlement lines. 
While the old method **isSettleDueLine()** is still there, 
the new **isAnySettleLine()** covers both order settlement and invoice settlement. 

This change was not reflected in the Saudi POS EDI integration during forward-porting,
which caused incorrect validation when processing POS orders containing both
regular sale lines and settlement lines.

# Current behavior before PR:

- Orders containing a mix of new sale lines and settlement lines could bypass
the intended validation.

- The validation logic relied on the old isSettleDueLine() method

# Desired behavior after PR is merged:

- Update the validation flow to use isAnySettleLine() (when available) to
correctly detect settlement lines.

- Prevent validation of POS orders that contain both settlement lines and new
sale lines.

- Ensure compatibility with newer versions of the pos_settle_due module and
restore the intended settlement validation behavior.

- Test case to ensure no regression on this feature

I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at
[www.odoo.com/submit-pr](http://www.odoo.com/submit-pr)

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#256177
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#254275

**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#112298
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#107493

Currently, when an error occurs during `/ai/generate_response` calls from the
frontend, a `UserError` is logged with its exception stack instead of being
emitted as a logger warning. Additionally, an `UncaughtPromiseError` is
surfaced on the UI.

Error:
```
Error on request:
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/odoo/src/enterprise/saas-19.1/ai/utils/llm_api_service.py", line 302, in _request
    response.raise_for_status()
  File "/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/requests/models.py", line 1021, in raise_for_status
```

The issue originates from the `/ai/generate_response` route, which is
defined as a controller `type="http"` to handling POST requests. When
line [1] raises an exception inside this controller, it automatically converts
the unhandled exception into an HTTP response. As a result, the request
returns a `500 Internal Server Error`, which then propagates to the frontend
and appears as an `UncaughtPromiseError`.

This commit fixes the issue by returning internal errors as chat
messages instead of raising exceptions. As a result, the error is
displayed as a message received from the AI agent, rather than
propagating as a server error to internal users.

[1]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/423dee8f565a6ca7cd88ec0625a5059920725f50/ai/controllers/thread.py#L83

Sentry-5691330773

Before this commit:
-------------------------
- In the Repair module, when a quality check for a product was marked as failed,
  Even after selecting a failure location, the failure location is not being set
  at the final product move.
- Instead of showing the selected failure location, the system displayed another
  location as the move destination after completing the repair process.

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------------
1. Install the quality_repair module.
2. In Quality, create a Control Point with:
   - Type = Pass-Fail
   - Control Per = Product or Operation
   - Set at least 1 Failure Location
3. Create a Repair Order for any product and start the repair process.
4. Perform a quality check, set it to Fail, and select a failure location.
5. Open the product moves, the destination location does not match the selected
   failure location.

Cause of the issue:
-------------------------
The failure location was not correctly assigned when a quality check failed
during the repair process because _move_to_failure_location determines the
destination location based on a stock picking (for receipts) or a production_id
(for manufacturing). In the Repair module, however, quality checks are linked to
a repair order, so the selected failure location was not set correctly.

After this commit:
-----------------------
- When a quality check fails in a repair order, the product’s destination
  location is correctly set to the failure location selected by the user.
- This ensures that, upon completion of the repair, the product is moved to the
  selected failure location, maintaining accurate inventory tracking and
  management.

Task ID:5254334

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#99235

Steps to reproduce:
-----------------------------------------
1. Install `sale_purchase_project` and Accounting modules
2. From settings, enable Budget Management
3. Create a new product with type Service and enable Create a project on order.
4. Create and confirm the sale order with that product (note the name of created project)
5. Create and confirm purchase order as follows:
> In other information page, select the created project in the Project field
> Add the same product in POL, Set price unit price to 100 and remove any tax
6. Create and post a Vendor Bill for the same vendor as the PO as follows:
> Add Bill line with label downpayment
> Set the Analytic Distribution to the created project
> Set amount to 30
7. Go to the created purchase order > Click on bill matching
8. Select the downpayment bill > Add to PO > Select created PO > Add Down Payment
9. Go to the created project and open dashboard

Observation:
-----------------------------------------
In the Costs section:
Expected Cost: 130
To Bill: 100
Billed: 30

Expected values:
-----------------------------------------
Expected Cost: 100
To Bill: 70
Billed: 30

Issue:
----------------------------------------
In the following code:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/7e81c528ae350aab4432207f5655dcfadf6ec627/addons/project_purchase/models/project_project.py#L186-L190

When an invoice line was posted (billed), the code correctly subtracted the cost from `amount_invoiced` (making it negative, representing actual cost). But the billed amount was NOT removed from `amount_to_invoice`. This caused double counting the same cost appeared in both 'To Bill' and 'Billed'

Solution:
-----------------------------------------
Replaced the quantity-based calculation with a proper amount-based approach:
- Introduced `total_invoiced_amount` to track the sum of all non-refund invoice line amounts (both posted and draft).
- Modified the unbilled calculation to: `PO_amount - total_invoiced_amount`, ensuring that the unbilled portion accurately reflects what remains to be invoiced from the purchase order.
- Excluded refunds from `total_invoiced_amount` calculation because credit notes represent reversals of previous invoices, not consumption of the purchase order.  Refunds still correctly affect the "billed" and "to_bill" buckets through the normal invoice line processing.

This ensures the accounting principle is maintained: Total Expected Cost = Billed + To Bill = Purchase Order Amount

opw-5167734

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#245649

Steps to reproduce:
---
- Install `Sales` module.
- Create a Sale Order.
- Add a section with products.
- Add a subsection under it with products.
- Enable `Hide Prices` on the section.
- Enable `Hide Composition` on the subsection.
- Preview the Sale Order.

Issue:
---
- Prices are still visible in the subsection (grouped view) even though `Hide Prices` is enabled on the parent section.

Root cause:
---
- The variable `show_section_total` was defined only within the main rendering block and not reused in the grouped (`t-else`) block.
- The grouped section summary (used when `collapse_composition=True`) did not respect the parent section's `collapse_prices` setting, causing prices to be displayed.

Solution:
---
- Moved `show_section_total` definition outside the main conditional block so it can be reused in both rendering paths.
- Applied `t-if="show_section_total"` to price fields in the grouped section summary to ensure consistency with the parent section's price visibility.

Before:
---
<img width="1030" height="232" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/1ac05e5e-6841-420f-909f-994690656cc0" />

After:
---
<img width="1023" height="232" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/921ae337-4d53-433a-a42b-bdc437181889" />



opw-5979807
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#255464

The AVCO audit report currently recalculates the AVCO value on outgoing moves. Based on the logic in `run_average_batch()`, it should instead use the AVCO value computed on the last ingoing move to recalculate the
`added_value`.                                                         

On the other hand, the `added_value` should not be recomputed from the AVCO value on ingoing moves.

Source of those changes: [245141](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/245141)

Steps to reproduce the issue:
1. Create a new product. Do not assign it to a category yet.
2. Set the cost (standard_price) to 10$ on the product form.
3. Add 10 units to inventory.
4. Sell and deliver 5 units to a customer.
5. Purchase 10 units at 25$/ea and validate the receipt.
6. Sell and deliver 5 units to a customer.
7. Assign the product to category with AVCO cost method.
8. Go to the AVCO justification report:
    - The added value on the purchase is incorrect: 200$ instead of 250$.
    - On the last delivery: the added value is -125$ and the AVCO increases from 20$ to 25$.

Ticket: opw-5921104

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#252239

**Description of the issue this PR addresses:**
Ensure the `Looking for Help` timer is shown even when the current 
user is already a member of the livechat channel.

**Steps to Reproduce:**
1. Log in as a visitor and as Mitchell Admin (Live Chat operator).
2. From the visitor side, select I have a pricing question.
3. From the admin side, mark the conversation as Looking for Help.
4. The channel appears in the Looking for Help category.
5. Observe that the timer should be visible there (e.g., 1m).

**Current behavior before PR:**
- The timer was hidden when an agent was already a member of the 
conversation, assuming that once an agent joined, the `waiting for help` 
phase was over.

- However, in escalation workflows an analyst may escalate a chat and 
remain a member while the channel returns to the `Looking for Help` 
state for another expert. In this case, the escalating analyst could not 
see the timer needed to track SLA requirements (e.g., creating a 
ticket after 10 minutes).

- Also, the mock server did not recompute
`livechat_looking_for_help_since_dt` when `livechat_status`
changes, leading to incorrect timer values (e.g., showing 2d
instead of < 1m after switching back to Looking for Help).

**Desired behavior after PR is merged:**

- The timer is displayed whenever the channel is in `need_help` 
and `livechat_looking_for_help_since_dt` is set, regardless of 
whether the current user is a member of the channel.
- The mock server now mirrors server-side behavior by updating
`livechat_looking_for_help_since_dt` when livechat_status changes,
prevents missing recomputations and ensuring consistent test
behavior.

task-[6009851](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project/1519/tasks/6009851)


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

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#111956
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#109671

With l10n_be company:
- Create at least two invoices for two different customers (companies) for whom you will add a fake VAT number. Make sure the total on both your invoices is more than 250€ and set their Accounting date to last year.
- Go check the VAT partner Listing report (Accounting > Reporting); make sure you see both partners in the listing.
- Click on returns > Check that report return then Submit and download the XML file: both partners & amounts will appear.
- Now with dev mode, go to Accounting reports, open the Partner VAT listing form > Options > set the "load more limit" to 1.

Download the XML again: only the first partner appears (the only that was loaded with the load more limit.

This commit is a backport of bugfix: PR odoo/enterprise#106134 commit e532750fe3dc1f2d10d995d01446b04a3a227a72
Original problem introduced in `saas-18.3`: PR odoo/enterprise#111783 commit 4c927b389252b595bcbb44d020899ae5abf0aa89

Ticket [link](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project.task/6051120)
opw-6051120

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#111783

### Issue before this commit:
When creating a credit note using “Reverse and create invoice”, the generated invoice loses the Source field. While the original invoice correctly displays the source, the new invoice created after reversal does not, leading to missing information in the report.

### Steps to reproduce the issue:
1. Create a sales order for product A
2. Deliver product A
3. Create invoice
4. Create credit note by clicking on "Reverse and create invoice"
5. The new invoice correctly remains linked to the Sales order
6. However, the source document disapear on the PDF

### Cause of the issue:
In the reversal flow, the new invoice is created using copy_data() without explicitly preserving the invoice_origin field. As a result, the newly created invoice does not inherit the source information from the original invoice, even though it is still logically linked.

### Reason to introduce the fix:
To ensure consistency between invoices and preserve important traceability information, the invoice_origin field must be propagated to the new invoice created during the reversal process. This guarantees that the Source is correctly displayed in the PDF.

opw-6034574

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#254290

### Issue:

The company used in the main barcode menu is the `company_id` of the user rather than the current contextual company of the session. This is problematic as we might endup using the wrong barcode nomenclature.

### Steps to reproduce:

- Have 2 companies: company 1 and company 2
- Set the barcode nomenclature of company 1: default, company 2: GS1
- Incarnate a user allowed in both companies but with default company 1
- With company 2, create a product and set its barcode to 36939282410106
- From the main menu open the barcode app and scan 0136939282410106
#### > No product was found (even thought it is correct in GS1)

### Cause of the issue:

Scanning from the main barcode menu will trigger a call of the `main_menu` method relying on the nomenclature of the contextual company of the request:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/804ea21c225a7a1e0763bac188f027adeb3ab78f/stock_barcode/static/src/main_menu/main_menu.js#L98-L99 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/804ea21c225a7a1e0763bac188f027adeb3ab78f/stock_barcode/controllers/stock_barcode.py#L15-L21 
However, when opening the main barcode menu from the app menu, no contextual warehouse was set to the view:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/804ea21c225a7a1e0763bac188f027adeb3ab78f/stock_barcode/views/stock_barcode_views.xml#L6-L11
As such, the environment of the request will be set here: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/9393b0db6791fe5a7f576cff55705e315fb3dd11/odoo/http.py#L2083
based on the company of the user rather than the one of the context: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/9393b0db6791fe5a7f576cff55705e315fb3dd11/odoo/api.py#L694-L722

### Fix:

Setting the company slices the `current_company` in first position of the `allowed_company_ids`:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/260c69ed64f8663b6935b9863c86aac6dbecd961/addons/web/static/src/webclient/switch_company_menu/switch_company_menu.js#L33-L39 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/260c69ed64f8663b6935b9863c86aac6dbecd961/addons/web/static/src/webclient/switch_company_menu/switch_company_menu.js#L68-L81
which can be recovered from the cookies via the `_get_allowed_company_ids`: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/43f65ff2f3c6177cc69647bbb85bb40a84409457/stock_barcode/controllers/stock_barcode.py#L432-L442 precisely used by the `_get_barcode_nomenclature`: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/43f65ff2f3c6177cc69647bbb85bb40a84409457/stock_barcode/controllers/stock_barcode.py#L485-L491
Note that passing the context in the arguments of the `main_menu` JSON  route will not really solve the issue by it self since the context is no longer shared with the request: c8cd1d4a83de7a5798cbb910a788fbb6fe208d2f

### Additional Issue:

The type `dest_location` does not exist on barcode types: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/485a64b6a1e91feb4310f282c6dd1cd021f1780b/addons/barcodes_gs1_nomenclature/models/barcode_rule.py#L16-L20 so that the type used by these lines can not work: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/1dedc5bbcee43bfd13e55206e3d7364f715ca9be/stock_barcode/controllers/stock_barcode.py#L29-L30 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/1dedc5bbcee43bfd13e55206e3d7364f715ca9be/stock_barcode/controllers/stock_barcode.py#L52-L56

### Steps to reproduce:

- In the settings enable: Multi-Steps Routes
- Set the barcode nomenclature to GS1
- Set your warehouse in receipt in two steps and add a barcode to the WH/Input: 3033710074365
- From the main menu open the barcode app and scan 4133033710074365
#### > No product or picking was found (even thought it is correct in GS1 that should create an internal transfer with WH/INPUT as destination)

opw-5847529

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#112006
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#111662

Currently, when a user confirms the quantity of an archived product using the product selector in the barcode app, a traceback error occurs.

## Steps to replicate:
- Install Inventory
- Go to Settings and enable Multi-Step Routes > Set Warehouse Routes.
- Configure 2 steps for outgoing shipments.
- Go to Inventory and  create a new delivery with
   - **Source Location:** WH/Stock
   - **Product:**  [E-COM10] Pedal Bin with demand 1
- Mark as Todo then Archive the Pedal Bin product.
- Open that delivery in barcode app
- Pencil icon > +1 > Confirm

## Observed behavior:
TypeError: Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'qty_available')

## Root cause:
After this [commit], an override was added to the product selector. As a result, when [2] calls the `search_read` method, it only retrieves non-archived products Consequently, if the result is an empty array, attempting to access `qty_available` causes the type error mentioned above.

## Solution:
Adding` active_test = false `to the context ensures that archived products are included in search results. This prevents empty results and avoids the error.

It also allows quantities to be added and confirmed,maintaining the same behavior as when using the increment button
followed by validation, ensuring consistency.

[commit]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/6aa814f59f8641d7b57af160e38b50d5bdfc8a97 
[2]-
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/e13b44b353e734a6533f7d627ed69b6e7b033ee2/stock_barcode/static/src/js/stock_barcode_sml_form.js#L40-L45

opw-5980428

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#109204

Fixes Task 5213234

Issue:
In AccountMove method _find_matching_po_and_inv_lines (called when looking for
a subset match of EDI invoice lines with PO lines), the price_unit of a
purchase.order.line is compared to the price_unit of an invoice line.
However, currently the comparisons do not take into account the precision to be
applied to product prices.
In some cases, the invoice line price_unit differs from the price_unit in a PO
line, but by less than the "Product Price" precision. With the current
comparisons this leads to not matching the lines.
This has prevented matching some invoices received via Peppol for at least one
big customer (see Task-5213234)

Steps to reproduce:
- Create an XML document for an EDI UBL invoice with 2 lines; the first line
  has a price_unit 113.57 euros (for example) 
- Create a PO with a reference matching the invoice, and one PO line with a
  price_unit matching the price_unit of the first invoice line (113.57 euros)
- Upload the XML invoice and create a bill from it; during the creation of the
  account.move.line, the price_unit gets a value which is slightly different
  from 113.57 (113.57000000000001) (due to python rounding ?)
- Result: no link is established between the PO and the invoice.

This fix makes sure that the "Product Price" precision is used when comparing
the invoice line price_unit with a PO line price_unit.

opw-5213234

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#235477
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#232527

Current behavior:
When trying to validate a picture instruction in shopfloor, Odoo legitimately raises a UserError if the picture is missing. However, even after adding a picture afterward, the Validate button remains unclickable, forcing the user to close the wizard and start again.

Expected behavior:
Even if an error occurs during validation, the Validate button should remain clickable (especially once the cause is addressed).

Steps to reproduce:
- Create a BoM with one operation - Save.
- Add a "take a picture" instruction on this operation.
- Create a MO with this BoM, confirm it.
- Go to the shopfloor, find the WO of the created MO. Open "instructions".
- Click on the small camera to open the check wizard.
- Confirm without taking a picture or uploading an image.
- Error pops up ("Please upload a picture"), close the popup.
- Then add a picture. => The Validate button remains unclickable. We need to close and re-open the wizard to continue, which can be frustrating and time-consuming for manufacturing users, especially with many instructions.

Issue Explanation:
In MrpQualityCheckConfirmationDialog/doActionAndClose, this.props.record.model.orm.call can legitimately raise a UserError, but the button is disabled at the beginning of the method and remains in this state regardless of what happens afterward.

Fix:
Add a try-catch clause to re-enable the button if an error occurs.

Alternative fix:
The button should remain disabled until a picture is taken, but that sounds like a more disruptive change that might impact other flows.

### Open questions

Do we need to add a test for it? Only a JS tour is suitable which it seems a bit much for this kind of bug. What do you think?

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/246481

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#105990

**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#112298
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#107493

Before this commit:
-------------------------
- In the Repair module, when a quality check for a product was marked as failed,
  Even after selecting a failure location, the failure location is not being set
  at the final product move.
- Instead of showing the selected failure location, the system displayed another
  location as the move destination after completing the repair process.

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------------
1. Install the quality_repair module.
2. In Quality, create a Control Point with:
   - Type = Pass-Fail
   - Control Per = Product or Operation
   - Set at least 1 Failure Location
3. Create a Repair Order for any product and start the repair process.
4. Perform a quality check, set it to Fail, and select a failure location.
5. Open the product moves, the destination location does not match the selected
   failure location.

Cause of the issue:
-------------------------
The failure location was not correctly assigned when a quality check failed
during the repair process because _move_to_failure_location determines the
destination location based on a stock picking (for receipts) or a production_id
(for manufacturing). In the Repair module, however, quality checks are linked to
a repair order, so the selected failure location was not set correctly.

After this commit:
-----------------------
- When a quality check fails in a repair order, the product’s destination
  location is correctly set to the failure location selected by the user.
- This ensures that, upon completion of the repair, the product is moved to the
  selected failure location, maintaining accurate inventory tracking and
  management.

Task ID:5254334

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#99235

### 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#112229
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#111280

**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#111876
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#99784

### Issue before this commit:
When creating a credit note using “Reverse and create invoice”, the generated invoice loses the Source field. While the original invoice correctly displays the source, the new invoice created after reversal does not, leading to missing information in the report.

### Steps to reproduce the issue:
1. Create a sales order for product A
2. Deliver product A
3. Create invoice
4. Create credit note by clicking on "Reverse and create invoice"
5. The new invoice correctly remains linked to the Sales order
6. However, the source document disapear on the PDF

### Cause of the issue:
In the reversal flow, the new invoice is created using copy_data() without explicitly preserving the invoice_origin field. As a result, the newly created invoice does not inherit the source information from the original invoice, even though it is still logically linked.

### Reason to introduce the fix:
To ensure consistency between invoices and preserve important traceability information, the invoice_origin field must be propagated to the new invoice created during the reversal process. This guarantees that the Source is correctly displayed in the PDF.

opw-6034574

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#254290

# How to reproduce
- Create a time off request for a single employee
- Refuse it
- Duplicate it
- Refuse the duplicate
- Try to go back to draft

# The problem
The user is deadlocked and cannot go back to draft because of a client validation on the field employee_ids. The user cannot change that field because it is readonly, so he is stuck.

# Why
When duplicating a hr.leave, employee_id is copied but not employee_ids. Going back to the issue steps, if you look at the Employees field of the duplicate, it is empty. This later cause the issue with the client side validation.

Copying employee_ids when there are multiple employees did not seem like the best idea because a lot of flows relies on employee_id. employee_id is computed as follows :
```py
    def _compute_from_employee_ids(self):
        for holiday in self:
            if len(holiday.employee_ids) == 1:
                holiday.employee_id = holiday.employee_ids[0]._origin
            else:
                holiday.employee_id = False
```
So if we copy multiple employees in employee_ids, employee_id will be null, which might break these flows.

opw-5995398

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#253075

### **Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:**

**Issue:** In Odoo 18/19, purchase move lines default to the WH's main stock location (`lot_stock_id`) as the `location_final_id`. However, when a user configures a sub-location on the Receipt Operation Type, the picking destination is correct, but the move lines are defaulted to the main warehouse. This mismatch causes the Forecasted Quantity to not increment for the intended sub-location

**Solution:** Prioritize the `default_location_dest_id` before falling back to the default stock location

opw-6032018

### **Current behavior before PR:** 
When confirming a PO, the `location_final_id` on stock moves defaults to the `lot_stock_id`, regardless of the specific destination set on the Operation Type. This causes a mismatch in 1-step receiving flows where a sub-location (e.g., WH/Stock/Test) is intended, since the move lines revert to the root warehouse location (WH/Stock). Thus, the forecasted quantity for the specific sub-location doesn't increment as expected.

### **Desired behavior after PR is merged:** 
The `_get_final_location_record` method will now evaluate if the Operation Type's `default_location_dest_id` is a child of the warehouse's main stock. If it is, the sub-location is used as the `location_final_id` for the moves and move lines. This ensures that the forecasted quantity reflects the intended destination upon PO confirmation while still maintaining the fallback to the warehouse root for standard multi-step routes.




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

# How to reproduce
- Create a time off request for a single employee
- Refuse it
- Duplicate it
- Refuse the duplicate
- Try to go back to draft

# The problem
The user is deadlocked and cannot go back to draft because of a client validation on the field employee_ids. The user cannot change that field because it is readonly, so he is stuck.

# Why
When duplicating a hr.leave, employee_id is copied but not employee_ids. Going back to the issue steps, if you look at the Employees field of the duplicate, it is empty. This later cause the issue with the client side validation.

Copying employee_ids when there are multiple employees did not seem like the best idea because a lot of flows relies on employee_id. employee_id is computed as follows :
```py
    def _compute_from_employee_ids(self):
        for holiday in self:
            if len(holiday.employee_ids) == 1:
                holiday.employee_id = holiday.employee_ids[0]._origin
            else:
                holiday.employee_id = False
```
So if we copy multiple employees in employee_ids, employee_id will be null, which might break these flows.

opw-5995398

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

The _compute_cumulated_balance() method performs a query over every
existing move lines to get a dict associating the record id with
the cumulated sum at this point.

When there is a lot of move lines, the result returned by fetchall()
hits the memory limit and the server crashes.

We propose to encapsulate the original query to only return
the result for the account move lines present in self.

Benchmarks
---------------

The following benchmarks were generated with a customization of
the account.move.line list view to display the cumulated_balance
field.

Memory usage during the self.env.cr.execute and the dictionary
population:

|     Operation | Before the fix | After the fix |
|---------------|----------------|---------------|
| populate dict |         1.5 GB |       17.1 MB |
| execute query |         430 MB |        8.3 MB |

100 000 lines were displayed at the same time to get a significant
size.
So the number of records in self is more than 7 000 000 without
the fix and 100 000 with the fix.

Time spent in the _compute_cumulated_balance method:

| No of AML | Before the fix | After the fix |
|-----------|----------------|---------------|
| 7 000 000 |         10.4 s |         6.8 s |

opw-6053720

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