Currently, customers report errors when connecting or refreshing a
Shopee account through the `sale_shopee` module.

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install and configure the `sale_shopee` module
- Attempt to connect a Shopee account via the onboarding flow
- Complete the authorization process

**Observed behavior:**
An error is raised during the authorization callback, preventing the
Shopee account from being connected or refreshed.

**Root cause:**
In `onboarding.py`, the `shopee_return_from_authorization` controller
incorrectly uses `utils.with_context(authorization_code=code)`. Since
`utils` is an imported Python module, calling `with_context` on it
attempts to set the context on the module itself rather than on a
model instance, which raises an error.

**Solution:**
Move the `with_context` call from the `utils` module to the `temp_shop`
record, which is the appropriate model instance that needs the context.

Additionally, this commit adds regression tests for the controller to
prevent future regressions, as this functionality was previously
untested.

opw-6092524

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#113081

Note: In 18.4, the editor inserts a space before and after the prompt container, in which case the following steps won't cause an error because the container won't be the only html element.

Steps to reproduce:
- Create a new email template.
- Insert a prompt by using the '/prompt' command.
- Type any prompt like 'Say Hello'.
- Save the email template.
- Click on preview.
- The prompt isn't evaluated.

The '_eval_ai_prompts' method creates a root element from the passed html content. When the passed content represents a single prompt container html element, the root will become that prompt container. The method will try to evaluate the prompt and replace the prompt container and then return the root. The returned root won't contain the evaluation of the prompt in this case because the whole root should be replaced by the evaluation given that there is no other elements.

To fix this, the html content will always be wrapped in a `<div>` to avoid the need for replacing the whole root element.

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#111645
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#110247

**Steps to reproduce**
- Create a first partner (name: "Partner", email: "partner@mail.com", phone: "123").
- Go to the website form of a helpdesk team, and submit a ticket using "Partner@mail.com" as email (notice the different capitalization) and "456" as phone number.

Behavior without this fix: a new partner is created, but the ticket is assigned to the orignal partner ("partner@mail.com") and its phone number is updated.

Behavior after this fix: no partner is created.

**Causes**
- the partner search was case sensitive
- the created partner was not used as the `partner_id` of the ticket as it was added to the params but needs to be in the kwargs passed to `handle_website_form` in order to be found used by `extract_data`. The original partner was found in `_find_or_create_partner` by the call to
`_mail_find_partner_from_emails` (case-insensitive)

Note: this commit also ensures consistency between the partner's company and the ticket's company (same as in `_find_or_create_partner` of `helpdesk.ticket`).
Also, avoid allowing modifying existing partner's phone via this form.

opw-5914064

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#109393

Steps to reproduce:
1. Upload an XML invoice (e.g., UBL) containing an embedded PDF into the Documents app.
2. Select the document to open the preview panel.
3. The viewer opens but shows a grey/empty PDF viewer.

Context:
Commit odoo/odoo@5035107e introduced an updated PDF viewer.js. Subsequently, commit d3481a5e removed the `download=0` query parameter from the viewer route to prevent `new URL()` parsing errors on relative paths.

However, the backend specifically relies on the `download=0` flag to intercept the request, extract the Base64 data, and serve the raw PDF binary. Without this parameter, the backend serves the raw XML string directly to the PDF viewer, causing the parser to crash.

Fix:
Restore the `download=0` parameter by using the core `url` utility to construct a safe, absolute URL before encoding it for the viewer. This satisfies the strict `new URL()` parsing in the updated PDF viewer while ensuring the backend correctly triggers the PDF extraction.

Task-6065246

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#112007

BEFORE:
- Before this commit, when we disable the gst e-filing feature from the
  configuration and try to access the tax return view, we are getting blocked by
  the redirect warning, which suggests enabling the gst e-filing feature from
  the configuration.
- Which is not desirable, as there might be some returns that are not related to
  gst e-filing, which should be accessible by the user.

AFTER:
- After this commit, removed the RedirectWarning when accessing the tax return
  view with gst e-filing feature disabled. So now the user can access tax returns
  without enabling gst e-filing feature.
- At the time of setting the fiscal year(generating/refreshing returns
  automatically), the GSTR returns will not be created.
- And at the time of manual GSTR return creation, we are raising UserError to
  instruct the user about enabling the gst e-filing feature.

Related Com PR: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/247216

Task-5486586

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#113741
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#105983

**Problem:**
Currently, when 'Hide Composition' is enabled on a section containing at least one product, while the order have subscription product, the recurring lines within that section are still visible in the portal's 'preview' view, whereas they are correctly hidden in the PDF report.

**Expected behavior:**
As observed in pdf format, in preview, the hidden section should hide the components and only view the name of the section.

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Create quotation with One Goods type product
- Add section with Hide composition
- Add service type product in the section
- Preview it and section products will be hidden
- Confirm the quotation and now preview the sales order
- Now the hidden section products will be visible

**Solution:**
- We need to separate the logic of displaying lines and invoiceable lines (since _get_invoiceable_lines doesn't necessarily return the sections/subsections)
- The filtering in sale subscription module wasn't considering the `collapse_composition` boolean field, which why hidden sections content were displayed.
- We need to hide any product with a parent (section or subsection) collapsed, hide any subsection with a parent section collapsed.

opw-5868148

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#106287

Steps to produce:
---
- Install `Accounting` module.
- Create a new customer.
- From the gear icon, `grant Portal Access` to the customer.
- Create an invoice for this customer.
- Log in using the customer’s portal account.
- Navigate to `My Invoices`.

Issue:
---
```
You are not allowed to access 'Payment' (account.payment) records.

```

Root cause:
---
- After the [commit], the system attempts to compute the next payment values for display in the portal.
- This computation is triggered via `_get_invoice_portal_extra_values()`, which calls `_get_invoice_next_payment_values()`.
- During this process, the method iterates over `reconciled_payment_ids`. Accessing this field triggers its computation (`_compute_reconciled_payment_ids`), which depends on `matched_payment_ids`.
- Both `reconciled_payment_ids` and `matched_payment_ids` are relational fields pointing to `account.payment` records.
- Since portal users do not have read access to the `account.payment` model, attempting to access these fields results in an AccessError

[commit]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/b76836680540eb7687021f48b3532e8a495e771a

opw-6042693
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

Pre-requisites:
------------------------------------------
1. Install `sale_project` and `project_account_budget` modules
2. Have two companies configured in the system
3. Enable Timesheets from the Settings app
4. Create two projects (one for each company)
5. Ensure the following settings are enabled on both projects:
     * Timesheets
     * Billable

Steps to Reproduce:
------------------------------------------
1. Switched to Company A
2. Create a product with:
    * Type: Service
    * Create on Order: Task
    * No company restriction
3. Set the product's `project_id` to Company A's project
4. Switch to the newly created company (Company B)
5. Set the product's `project_id` to Company B's project
6. Enable Analytic Distribution from SOL Optional
7. Create a sale order with the configured product, and delete the auto-fetched
Analytic Distribution account for the sale order (Company B's project)
8. Now confirm the sale order

Observation:
----------------------------------------
The SOL's analytic distribution uses the analytic account from Company A's project instead of Company B

Issue:
----------------------------------------
The `project_id` field on `product.template` is `company_dependent=True`, meaning it stores different values per company. However, in `_compute_analytic_distribution()`, the code accesses `line.product_id.project_id` without calling `with_company`, so it resolves the field using the wrong company context

Solution:
----------------------------------------
using `with_company()`, the correct company context is applied when accessing
`project_id`, preventing inconsistencies in multi-company environments and
ensuring the appropriate project is used for the corresponding company.


opw-5864452

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#257776

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#258207
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#255780

This forward port merges [PR1](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/255043) (original PR from this forward port) 
and forward port of [PR2](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/256383) which is improving the fix.

**Problems:**
1) cogs don't adapt to partially consigned quantities
2) no cogs at all if product partially delivered

**Steps to reproduce:**
Problem 1)
- enable 'consignment' setting
- create a tracked product with perpetual category
(bug happens with avco, fifo and standard price category)
- set a cost of 10 
- add a quantity of 1 without owner and a quantity of 
1 with an owner
- create a sale order for a quantity of 2 of your produce
- confirm, validate picking and confirm invoice

-> the cogs is 20
-> the cogs should be 10 because the consigned 
quantity shouldn't be taken into account in the cogs

Problem 2) 
- set the warehouse as 2 steps delivery
- create a tracked product avco perpetual
- set a cost of 10$ and a positive quantity
- create and confirm a SO for 1 quantity
- validate only the first picking
- create and confirm the invoice

-> there is no cogs lines in the invoice
-> there should be cogs line for a cost of 10$

**Cause of the issue:**
Problem 1) 
to compute the cogs line amount, we multiply the quantity 
of the line (2 in our case) by the price unit of the cogs.
To compute the price_unit we call _get_cogs_value()
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0dbc1c01c6b48d0a765391d5b6ab03b555440aef/addons/stock_account/models/account_move.py#L122-L123 
In our case the price_unit (so the 'price per cogs unit') should 
be 5 because we have 2 units, 1 valued at 10 and 1 valued 
at 0 (the consigned one).
But the value returned by _get_cogs_value() is 10.

The reason for this is that _get_cogs_value uses the return 
value of _get_cogs_price_unit() because the delivery is validated.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0dbc1c01c6b48d0a765391d5b6ab03b555440aef/addons/stock_account/models/account_move_line.py#L67-L68

Inside get_cogs_price_unit, we use _get_valued_qty() to 
sum the valued quantity of each move. 
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0dbc1c01c6b48d0a765391d5b6ab03b555440aef/addons/stock_account/models/stock_move.py#L251
But inside get_valued_qty() for our second move, when 
calling get_out_move_lines(), no lines will be returned 
because should_exclude_for_valuation() will return True 
as the owner of the line is not the user.
So total qty will be 1.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0dbc1c01c6b48d0a765391d5b6ab03b555440aef/addons/stock_account/models/stock_move.py#L529

If the product is fifo, we return the total value of the moves (10 + 0) 
divided by total quantity (1). 
If the product is standard or avco we return the standard price. 
In both cases the return value is 10.
But in both cases it should be 5.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0dbc1c01c6b48d0a765391d5b6ab03b555440aef/addons/stock_account/models/stock_move.py#L251-L255

Problem 2)
Inside _get_cogs_value(), because there is done moves, 
we use _get_cogs_price_unit()
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5fd80a1fb8ef33cfa9261967cf14f6f0c421d45a/addons/stock_account/models/account_move_line.py#L67-L68
But because there is no valued quantity (because the done 
moves are internal), the return value will be 0.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5fd80a1fb8ef33cfa9261967cf14f6f0c421d45a/addons/stock_account/models/stock_move.py#L251-L253
So the cogs will have an amount of 0 and no line will be created
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5fd80a1fb8ef33cfa9261967cf14f6f0c421d45a/addons/stock_account/models/account_move.py#L125-L126

**fix**
Prob 1) The first thing to change is to not use the standard price when 
some quantities are consigned. 
The other thing is to add the quantities that would have been 
used if they weren't consigned because in this case we need them 
in the computation. 
Indeed these quantities are included in the invoice line quantity. 
At the end we are multiplying the unit price by the invoice line quantity
which includes consigned quantity, so we need to take them into 
account also when computing the price per cogs quantity.

Prob 2) If there is no quantity to value (consigned + not consigned) 
we fallback on the standard price (just as if there is no move).
This solves the issue of partially delivered order because no moves
are valued moves in this use case.
If there is a quantity to value (and we're in a case where we want
the average move value), we use the average move value (which 
will be 0 if all the moves are consigned, so the consigned use case
is also ok)

opw-6030161
opw-6001694

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#256231
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#255043

Steps to reproduce:
1. Create two expenses for different employees (e.g., Expense A for Employee 1, Expense B for Employee 2).
2. Upload different attachments to each (e.g., 2 files for A, 3 files for B).
3. Select both expenses and use the 'Post' action to open the posting wizard.
4. Click 'Post' in the wizard.
5. Check the generated journal entries (vendor bills).
Result: Both vendor bills contain all 5 attachments (copies of A's files and copies of B's files).

Issue:
In `_prepare_bills_vals`, `self.attachment_ids` is collected before the
`grouped('employee_id')` loop (see: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/6b7fff433335edf7459f7a6eb5c274c0f4d5d1df/addons/hr_expense/models/hr_expense.py#L1572-L1578).
Since `self` refers to the full expense recordset, `self.attachment_ids` returns
the union of all attachments across every expense. This combined list is then
assigned to every bill created inside the loop, causing attachments from one
employee's expenses to leak into another employee's journal entry.

opw-6056590

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#258784
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#256031

This commit fixes an unexpected access rights error when users
try to add simple dynamic fields allowed by mail_allowed_qweb_expressions
to mass_mailing emails.

During the convert_inline process, the <t t-out=""/> placeholder element
has its style inlined, and attributed to its style attribute.
This style attribute was not filtered out during the safety
check process, resulting in the templating engine believing a disallowed
directive was used.

Steps to reproduce:
- On a fresh 18.0+ install with demo data, login as Marc Demo
- Access the Email Marketing app
- Create a new mailing campaign
- Set sending to Newsletter or Mailing Contact
- Type /field to add a dynamic value
- Set it to Name
- Save the mailing
- An access rights error is raised due to the user not having
    group_mail_template_editor permissions and the dynamic placeholder
    node having a style attribute

Fix:
T nodes are no longer granted a style attribute during style inlining.

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#257992
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#226111

## Issue
When logged as a portal user, clicking the *Edit* button on a message in the chatter does not do anything.

## Steps to reproduce
1. Install *Project* (`project`)
2. Create a Project P and a Task T
3. In the Setting of Project P, click *Share Project* and select a portal user
4. Logged as a portal user, open Task T, send a message in the chatter, then try to edit it by clicking the *Edit* (pencil) button.
5. **Nothing happens, but a traceback appears in the console: _Caused by: TypeError: Cannot read properties of null (reading 'id')_**

## Cause
The condition causing this error is the following:

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5cfdc9260653a2b22eb79b16702769928d450932/addons/project/static/src/project_sharing/chatter/composer_patch.js#L9-L13

where `this.thread` is not defined yet. Other conditions in this patch check for `this.thread` before trying to read its `id` [[1](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5cfdc9260653a2b22eb79b16702769928d450932/addons/project/static/src/project_sharing/chatter/composer_patch.js#L25), [2](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5cfdc9260653a2b22eb79b16702769928d450932/addons/project/static/src/project_sharing/chatter/composer_patch.js#L32)], which leads to believe that the check was simply forgotten in this condition.

opw-6072570

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#258234

Steps to reproduce:
--------------------------
1. Install Project and create a portal user.
2. Create a project and a task with tags added to it.
3. Share the project with the portal user (Edit access).
4. Log in as the portal user and open the task.
5. Click on the 'Tags' field and select 'Search More'

Issue:
----------
A traceback occurs:
```ValueError: Invalid field project.tags.display_in_project in condition ('display_in_project', '=', True)```

Cause:
----------
The [ProjectTaskRelationalModel](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/75fd7b05766c6789bf311f6a8257b89ecf4f86de/addons/project/static/src/views/project_task_relational_model.js#L4-L7) calls `_processSearchDomain.`
This method automatically appends a domain when 'showSubtasks' is not enabled.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/75fd7b05766c6789bf311f6a8257b89ecf4f86de/addons/project/static/src/views/project_task_model_mixin.js#L5-L12

When clicking 'Search More' on the 'Tags' field, the same domain is
applied to the **project.tags** model. However, since **project.tags**
does not have the `display_in_project` field, the ORM raises a ValueError.

In portal, only `project.webclient` assets are loaded, causing
ProjectTaskRelationalModel to be used for all relational fields.
In contrast, internal users use the standard RelationalModel, so the
issue does not occur.

Solution:
-------------
Restrict the domain modification in _processSearchDomain to apply only
when the current model is `project.task` and `report.project.task.user`.


opw-5930427



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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#258656
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#249282

### Steps to reproduce:

- Create a kit product with 6 bom lines (with a `cost_share` of `0.0%`)
- Create + confirm a purchase order for 1 unit of the kit product at 60
- Validate the delivery

#### > 6 layers were created with values 9.99, 10, 10, 10, 10 and 10

There are two issues with purchased kit valuation addressed in this PR:

### Issue 1:

Since 8c199f7783527735b35c9fbda334cbdcd55a004f, the product price unit is not supposed to be rounded anymore. However, kit products rely on the rounded `cost_share` field of the `mrp.bom.line` to determine which part of the price of the kit product is handled by which component: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/591102ff37fef1f0b9a946fee3f9d85789653e65/addons/mrp/models/stock_move.py#L245-L246 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/591102ff37fef1f0b9a946fee3f9d85789653e65/addons/purchase_mrp/models/stock_move.py#L28 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/591102ff37fef1f0b9a946fee3f9d85789653e65/addons/purchase_mrp/models/stock_move.py#L38

This leads to inevitable rounding issues where `60/6` does not match `10`: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/591102ff37fef1f0b9a946fee3f9d85789653e65/addons/purchase_mrp/tests/test_purchase_mrp_flow.py#L1273-L1275 simply because 1/6 is represented  as `16.67%` and not by `16.66666666666666%`. However, values such as 1/6 can be obtained if you do not set any `cost_share`, since the kit explosion will equidistribute its cost share:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/591102ff37fef1f0b9a946fee3f9d85789653e65/addons/purchase_mrp/models/mrp_bom.py#L42-L48

### Fix of this issue:

We set the digits to `False` for stability reason as the columns have 
been initiallised as "numeric" values and needs to stay numeric:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b007b0a4f7e56f6dc44df3154e13745c9981eae3/odoo/fields.py#L1627-L1650

Note that when the digit is Falsy on the field, the field value is formatted to the second digit by the front end:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/3542c542eac5b204e69a8dd6ae1907cfcef60af3/addons/web/static/src/views/fields/float/float_field.js#L58-L76
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/12e453302a950df4d9ee45954f54bdf610888eda/addons/web/static/src/core/utils/numbers.js#L214-L227

In particular, when we create the bom and set the `cost_share`, all possible values will be rounded to the second decimal just as before. This change will therefore only alter the rounding behavior in the DB for equidistributed values such as `16.66666666666666%`.

### Issue 2:

While the value of the kit product is exploded and distributed among components, the values of each individual `stock.valuation.layer` are themselves rounded before creation based on the company currency: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/4188436a9e800b062bf9f3b0055cad86acc47e19/addons/stock_account/models/product.py#L240-L255 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/4188436a9e800b062bf9f3b0055cad86acc47e19/addons/stock_account/models/stock_valuation_layer.py#L30

Now, this is problematic since the sum of the values of the layers is expected to match the total value of the purchase order line (that is, the non-rounded value of the components of the purchased kit).

### Fix of this issue:

We compute and distribute the rounding error among layers corresponding to the purchased kit product before creation (since layer values are not expected to be modified afterwards), based on the non-rounded computation, since this value should now be exact (as the unit cost is not rounded anymore).

opw-5085457
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#257411
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#252034

BEFORE:
- Before this commit, when we disable the gst e-filing feature from the configuration and try to access the tax return view, we are getting blocked by the redirect warning, which suggests enabling the gst e-filing feature from the configuration.
- Which is not desirable, as there might be some returns that are not related to gst e-filing, which should be accessible by the user.

AFTER:
- After this commit, removed the RedirectWarning when accessing the tax return view with gst e-filing feature disabled. So now the user can access tax returns without enabling gst e-filing feature.
- At the time of setting the fiscal year(generating/refreshing returns automatically), the GSTR returns will not be created.
- And at the time of manual GSTR return creation, we are raising UserError to instruct the user about enabling the gst e-filing feature.

Related Ent PR: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/105983

Task-5486586

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#259029
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#247216

# How to reproduce
- Go to the website editor
- Add a Masonry block
- Add a Form inner block in the Masonry block
- Select any fields of the form
- Set it's visibility to Hidden
- Save

# The problem
The field is still visible.

# Cause
When a field has its visibility set to hidden, it is applied the
`.s_website_form_field_hidden` CSS class which applies `display: none`.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/995629db3231de944710751c3184bf1b8b1355c7/addons/website/static/src/snippets/s_website_form/001.scss#L26-L28

But that CSS rule is overriden by the masonry's
`.s_masonry_block[data-vcss='001'] .row > div` CSS class.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/995629db3231de944710751c3184bf1b8b1355c7/addons/website/static/src/snippets/s_masonry_block/001.scss#L1-L3

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/995629db3231de944710751c3184bf1b8b1355c7/addons/website/static/src/scss/website.scss#L3246

# Proposed solution
We set `display: none` with `!important` to prevent it from being overidden.
We also need to add `!important` to its edit mode
counter-part so that the field is still visible in that mode.

opw-6038955

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#256100

Example of steps:
- Install todo module
- Create a todo task (it will be created without project_id)
- Go to project -> my task
- You can see your previously created todo task (with project set as)
- This todo task is marked as Private (since no project)
- Refresh page
- There is now an error because project is now required and you cannot save the current task

This problem is caused by `addFieldDependencies` from `relational_model/utils` Let's simplify the case with this view for example:

```xml
<form>
    <field name="foo" widget="my_widget"/>
    <field name="name" />
    <field name="child_ids">
        <list editable="top">
            <field name="foo" widget="my_widget"/>
            <field name="name" required="1"/>
        </list>
    </field>
</form>
```
my_widget is defined with these fieldDependencies:
```js
[
    {
        name: "name",
        type: "char",
    }
]
```
We have twice the same group of fields (name + foo with my_widget), one in the form view and the other one in the subview list (child_ids).

Currently, we firstly process subviews in `addFieldDependencies`. As "name" field is used in dependencies of `my_widget` and name is already use in the same view (subview list) with required="1" we will change `my_widget` dependencies to be required too by mutating `widget.fieldDependencies`.

And after, we will do the same with the main form view, but as fieldDependencies object from fieldInfo is the same for every instances of the widget everywhere (from form arch parser), we should not alter it because we might accidentally add attributes to certain fields (for example, in our case, making the “name” field in the main view required when it shouldn't be).

This commit fix this case by using a spread operator to shallow copy fieldDependencies items.

opw-6008266
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#258654

**Problem:**
When creating a new stock.move.line in the moves view (accessed via smart button from a picking), the newly created line disappears after any refresh action (manual refresh or triggering "Put in Pack").

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Open a receipt/picking operation
2. Click on the "Moves" smart button to open the detailed operations view
3. Create a new stock.move.line record
4. Click "Put in Pack" or manually refresh the page
5. Observe that the newly created line disappears

**Current behavior:**
The newly created stock.move.line disappears from the view after refresh, and only reappears if you navigate back to the picking and then return to the moves view.

**Expected behavior:**
The newly created stock.move.line should remain visible in the view after refresh or any action that triggers a view reload.

**Cause of the issue:**
  The action_detailed_operations method uses a static domain [('id', 'in', self.move_line_ids.ids)] that captures a snapshot of move line IDs at the moment the action is opened.
  https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/22ac818970f104a732cc7d24afc440cf0e6d74bd/addons/stock/models/stock_picking.py#L1204-L1212 When a new stock.move.line is created in this view, its ID is not included in the original static list. Any refresh (manual or triggered by operations like "Put in Pack") re-applies this static domain, filtering out the newly created lines because their IDs weren't captured in the initial list.

**Fix:**
Using a dynamic domain based on picking_id ensures all move lines belonging to the picking are always visible, regardless of when they were created. This aligns with the expected behavior of showing "all move lines for this picking" rather than "only the move lines that existed when the view was opened". The relational lookup [('picking_id', '=', self.id)] is re-evaluated on each refresh, automatically including any newly created lines that have the correct picking_id set.

opw-5398620

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#251619
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#247170

### Issue before this commit:
When a sales order with a product invoiced on delivered quantities is fully delivered and then completely returned the delivered quantity is reset to zero. In this situation, where nothing has been invoiced and nothing remains to be invoiced, the invoice status of the sales order line is incorrectly set to "Fully Invoiced" instead of "Nothing to Invoice".

### Steps to reproduce the issue:
1. Create a new quotation for a storable product.
2. Confirm the order.
3. Validate the delivery of the product.
4. Perform a return for the product
5. Validate that return to simulate a customer return.
6. The sales order details correctly reflect that the delivered quantity and invoiced quantity are both zero. Despite these values—which indicate there is nothing to invoice—the invoice status on the quotation erroneously displays as "fully invoiced".

### Cause of the issue:
The invoice status computation includes a fallback logic that marks a sales order line as "invoiced" when all related stock moves are either done or cancelled. However, this logic does not verify whether any quantity remains effectively delivered. As a result, after a full return, even when qty_delivered = 0, the condition is still met and the line is incorrectly marked as fully invoiced.

### Reason to introduce the fix:
A fully returned sales order line with no delivered and no invoiced quantity should not be considered fully invoiced. The fix ensures that the fallback to "invoiced" only applies when there is a strictly positive delivered quantity, preventing incorrect invoice status after full customer returns.

opw-6014772

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#258589
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#254871