Steps to produce:
---
- Install the `Sales` module.
- Enable discounts from settings.
- Create a Sale Order with a negative discount on an order line.
- Preview the Sale Order and click on the view details button.

Issue:
---
- Negative discount values are not shown in the preview (portal view), but they are displayed in the generated PDF.

Root cause:
---
- At [1], the portal template includes a condition to display discounts only when they are greater than 0, while the report templates lack this check, leading to inconsistent behavior.

Solution:
---
- Applied the same condition in the report templates to align the PDF output with the portal preview behavior.

Before:
---
<img width="787" height="136" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/d32311be-4aec-4d6f-b905-d5e52f712ba4" />

After:
---
<img width="775" height="139" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/2614a8ad-dca6-49ca-b720-5c234aa91cf6" />


[1]https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0f463fd247d2f5da79d6ec2b6bec18774f6f600b/addons/sale/views/sale_portal_templates.xml#L539

Enterprise PR: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/111916

opw-6061568

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#255735

### Issue before this commit:
When creating an invoice using the child contact of a parent contact that has a different language with respect to the father, the label of the invoice line was not always displayed in the child contact language but in the father's contact language.

### Steps to reproduce the issue:
1. Activate at least 2 languages (X and Y)
2. Create a product and set the translation for that product in the activated languages
3. Create a Contact with the language X
4. Create a child contact (invoice adress type) for that contact with language Y
5. Create a new invoice setting the customer as the child contact
6. Add the product you created
7. See the label is displayed in the language of the parent contact

### Cause of the issue:
The computation of the invoice line name relied on line.partner_id.lang. However, the partner_id of the move line is automatically set to the commercial partner that can be different (can be the father's contact) to the contact used on the invoice. As a result, the product description was translated using the wrong language.

### Reason to introduce the fix:
To ensure that invoice line labels are correctly translated according to the language of the selected invoice contact, the computation now uses the language of move_id.partner_id instead of line.partner_id. This guarantees consistent and expected behavior in multilingual environments, especially when using different contacts under the same commercial partner.

opw-5955875

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#254833

Starting version 2.1.4 of markupsafe, they decided to adapt the `striptags` function to use in-python-loops instead of the original implemenation that relied on pre-compiled regex.

A problem has been spotted with qweb templates that used `striptags` with large inputs, which led to the investigation of this function and it was found that the old implementation is actually faster. In fact, the PR introducing this change in Markupsafe, made these claims with no benchmarks whatsoever: https://github.com/pallets/markupsafe/pull/413/changes 

The new implementation of markupsafe is O(N x M), where n is the number of tags and M being the length of the input string. The old regex approach does a single c-level scan to check the existence of the regex which is performing much better for varying input size.

The benchmark cases below are in the form `<case_description>_<number_of_tags>`. We can see that in the cases where the current implementation is slightly faster is when there are no tags in the input which can be explained by the fact that the while loops will simply exit early. The time lost in the regex implementation is likely due to the deeper call stack to scan for the regex. Apart from that, in the case of an unclosed tag, the regex implementation is also slower because it still needs to scan the entire line. However, in that case the time taken is a handful of milliseconds, so it's not really a performance regression there either.

Apart from that, the old implementation is consistently much more performant, for both small and large inputs.

Benchmarks:

| Case                                      | Regex ms | Current ms | Speedup |
|----------------------------------------------|----------|------------|---------|
| plain_text_50k_words                         | 3.020    | 2.627      | 0.9x ← current_implementation |
| unclosed_tag_then_50kb_text                  | 0.367    | 0.032      | 0.1x ← current_implementation |
| unclosed_tag_then_500kb_text                 | 3.787    | 0.273      | 0.1x ← current_implementation |
| multiple_unclosed_open_tags_then_50kb_text   | 18.912   | 0.371      | 0.0x ← current_implementation |
| multiple_unclosed_open_tags_then_500kb_text  | 189.007  | 8.209      | 0.0x ← current_implementation |
| unclosed_comment_then_500kb_text             | 7.276    | 0.412      | 0.1x ← current_implementation |
| 5k_small_tags                                | 0.986    | 22.096     | 22.4x ← regex_old_implementation |
| 20k_small_tags                               | 4.125    | 492.186    | 119.3x ← regex_old_implementation |
| 50k_small_tags                               | 12.658   | 5499.602   | 434.5x ← regex_old_implementation |
| 1k_nested_divs                               | 0.155    | 0.923      | 5.9x ← regex_old_implementation |
| 10k_nested_divs                              | 1.648    | 48.410     | 29.4x ← regex_old_implementation |
| 2k_tags_with_attrs                           | 1.058    | 12.013     | 11.4x ← regex_old_implementation |
| 20k_tags_with_attrs                          | 13.185   | 6068.755   | 460.3x ← regex_old_implementation |
| 2k_multiline_tags                            | 0.815    | 10.819     | 13.3x ← regex_old_implementation |
| 20k_multiline_tags                           | 8.939    | 4231.768   | 473.4x ← regex_old_implementation |
| 1k_comments                                  | 0.222    | 1.292      | 5.8x ← regex_old_implementation |
| 1k_comments_hiding_tags                      | 0.163    | 1.121      | 6.9x ← regex_old_implementation |
| 2k_mixed                                     | 0.278    | 2.392      | 8.6x ← regex_old_implementation |
| 10k_mixed                                    | 1.400    | 50.959     | 36.4x ← regex_old_implementation |
| qweb_shop_200_products                       | 0.907    | 7.880      | 8.7x ← regex_old_implementation |
| qweb_shop_1000_products                      | 4.296    | 194.647    | 45.3x ← regex_old_implementation |


This PR is needed because requirements.txt in Odoo specifies the following dependency:
`MarkupSafe==2.1.5 ; python_version >= '3.12' \# (Noble)`

This means that all versions running Ubuntu Noble, will be having the same issue introduced in version 2.1.4 of markupsafe.

opw-5999688

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

**Steps to reproduce:**
* Install `l10n_hr_edi` module.
* Generate an invoice and validate it.
* Generate a credit note from that invoice.
* Without a recipient bank account, try to send the credit note to Mojeracun.

**Observed behavior:**
* Two errors are raised before the XML is generated:
  1. `AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'get'` in `_invoice_constraints_eracun_new` when checking for whitespace in the bank account number.
  2. `ValueError: The following child node is not defined in the template: CreditNote/cac:BillingReference/cbc:IssueDate` during XML serialization.

**Cause:**
* issue 1 : https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/96cf6626d2b3e75637b908244cf2fa4da615c16b#diff-16f43166a8e5a637cb57b5695a1332845ba5440d989e25fcd59c828aa55cb036R81
* In the mentioned commit `_invoice_constraints_eracun_new`, `node.get('cac:PayeeFinancialAccount', {})` returns `None` instead of `{}` when the key exists but its value is explicitly set to `None` (which happens when no bank account is set). Chaining `.get()` on `None` raises `AttributeError`.
* issue 2 : https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/47ef0c2cb96be9fffdc4985255661807980839c6#diff-16f43166a8e5a637cb57b5695a1332845ba5440d989e25fcd59c828aa55cb036R146
* In the mentioned commit in `_ubl_add_billing_reference_nodes`, `cbc:IssueDate` was added as a direct child of `cac:BillingReference`. The UBL template only allows `cac:InvoiceDocumentReference` as a child of `BillingReference`, while `cbc:IssueDate` belongs inside `cac:InvoiceDocumentReference`.

**Fix:**
* Replace `.get('cac:PayeeFinancialAccount', {})` with `.get('cac:PayeeFinancialAccount')` to safely handle an explicitly `None` value before chaining further calls.
* Move `cbc:IssueDate` inside `cac:InvoiceDocumentReference` in the `BillingReference` node, matching the structure defined in `ubl_21_common.py`.

opw-6088424

### Contains the following commits:

https://github.com/odoo/o-spreadsheet/commit/74d5391b59 [REL] 18.0.63 [Task: 0](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/2328/tasks/0)
https://github.com/odoo/o-spreadsheet/commit/3070d45ea6 [IMP] tests: add image snapshots for renderer store tests [Task: 5933130](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/2328/tasks/5933130)
https://github.com/odoo/o-spreadsheet/commit/2b5930f24e [FIX] renderer: rendering tests are wrong [Task: 5933130](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/2328/tasks/5933130)
https://github.com/odoo/o-spreadsheet/commit/936b957cbd [IMP] tests: update jest to v30 [Task: 5933130](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/2328/tasks/5933130)
https://github.com/odoo/o-spreadsheet/commit/8a7a1a8985 [FIX] format: keep negative accounting suffix in large number [Task: 6068834](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/2328/tasks/6068834)
https://github.com/odoo/o-spreadsheet/commit/e3bb0e35e4 [FIX] cf: add sanity checks on conditional format type/operator [Task: 6106092](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/2328/tasks/6106092)
https://github.com/odoo/o-spreadsheet/commit/3591e31de4 [FIX] live-server: specify host to avoid issues with some browsers [Task: 0](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/2328/tasks/0)

Co-authored-by: Florian Damhaut (flda) <flda@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Anthony Hendrickx (anhe) <anhe@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Alexis Lacroix (laa) <laa@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Lucas Lefèvre (lul) <lul@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Adrien Minne (adrm) <adrm@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Ronak Mukeshbhai Bharadiya (rmbh) <rmbh@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Dhrutik Patel (dhrp) <dhrp@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Rémi Rahir (rar) <rar@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Pierre Rousseau (pro) <pro@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Vincent Schippefilt (vsc) <vsc@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Marceline Thomas (matho) <matho@odoo.com>

**steps to reproduce:**
1. Create a contact
2. On the accounting tab, add one bank account
3. Change the name of the contact
4. The record's name updates automatically the field "Account Holder Name"

**problem:**
When changing a profile's name in the contacts app, the account holder name changes to be the same as the profile's name.

**expected behaviour:**
"Make the account holder name update if partner.name is changed ONLY if they were the same before the change. Otherwise keep the account holder name as is." - Referenced from the feature ticket: 5222712

That means if contact's name is the same as the account holder name, then any change to the contact's name, should as well update 'account holder name' accordingly, but if you changed the account holder name itself, then you change contact's name (if they're not the same) then the account holder name shouldn't be updated to match the contact's name.

**cause:**
The account holder name depends on `partner_id.name`
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/2394a9a7f0ece2d5a2185fa4e715d943fc044733/odoo/addons/base/models/res_bank.py#L104-L107

So whenever you change the contact's name, the account holder name changes accordingly.

**Fix:**
Upon creation, the account holder name is set to the partner name if no name is provided. Additionally, when the partner name changes, the account holder name is updated only if it previously matched the partnername; otherwise, it is left unchanged.

**NOTE:**
This is a backport of this PR: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/233965

opw-5913464

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#248886