Problem: When you confirm a rental order that has a kit product whose components use two different pack locations Odoo crashes with a singleton error. You get this singleton error because Odoo tries to assign both picks as the `return_id` because they share the same `sale.order.line` here: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/2212b3f3f3d90894dd6351defe0d3ca090584955/sale_stock_renting/models/sale_order_line.py#L404

Purpose: Use [:1] to safely handle the case where multiple pick transfers are created, avoiding a crash when assigning return_id which expects a single record.

Steps to Reproduce on Runbot:

1. Enable mutli-step routes and rental transfers.
2. Set the warehouse to 3-step delivery.
3. Copy the existing packing location.
4. Copy the existing pick operation type and set the destination location to the new packing location. 
5. Create a new route.
6. Create new rules on this new route with the following configurations:
   1. Rule 1
      1. Action: Pull
      2. Source location: WH/Stock
      3. Destination location: Partners/Customers
      4. Operation type: The new pick operation type
   2. Rule 2
      1. Action: Push
      2. Source location: New pack location
      3. Destination location: WH/Output
      4. Operation type: Pack
   3. Rule 3
      1. Action: Push
      2. Source location: WH/Output
      3. Destination location: Partners/Customers
      4. Operation type: Delivery
7. Create 2 component products tracked by inventory, and apply the new route on one of the component products.
8. Create a new rental product with a kit, which has the 2 component products.
9. Create a new rental order for the kit product and confirm it. 


opw-6026918

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#114020
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#112543

### Issue before this commit:
When generating the electronic invoice XML (FatturaPA) with units of measure containing non-standard Unicode characters (e.g. m², m³), the resulting XML fails validation, as these characters are not accepted by the SdI format.

### Steps to reproduce the issue:
1. Download Italian loc + electronic invoicing
2. Activate UoM option in settings
3. Set a product UoM in any unit that has an apex/power of (ex. m2, m3)
4. Invoice this product
5. Create the XML for SdI
6. Check format with Fex > apex is not recognised as a valid character

### Cause of the issue:
The UoM name is exported as-is into the XML. Non-standard Unicode characters are preserved during formatting and are not compatible with the allowed character set defined by the FatturaPA specifications.

### Reason to introduce the fix:
Ensure that units of measure are normalized into a compatible representation before being included in the XML, so that the generated file complies with SdI validation rules.

opw-6075119

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#259076
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#257012

**Purpose:**
Since a stock.quant is a combination of the stock move lines of a product
and a location, it should be restricted by the product's company.

**Before this commit:**
In a multi-company environment. If a purchase order with product from
company 1 is being confirmed, received, and validated when company 2 is
being selected as the primary active company while company 1 is also
checked. It will create a stock.quant that is searchable for company 2.
However, it will raise an error when company 2 is trying to access it.

**After this commit:**
Even if the stock.quant is created when company 2 is the primary active
company, it will not be searchable for company 2 since the product's
company is company 1.

**Steps to Reproduce on Runbot:**

- Create a storable product exclusive to Company A
- Create & validate a receipt for that product in Company A.
- Switch to Company B -> Reporting > Locations > Remove all filters: The negative quant for the product in Partners/Vendors is visible.

opw-6082330

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#259733
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#257211

### Steps to reproduce:

- In the settings Dropshipping
- Put you warehouse in 2 steps delivery
- Create a kit product with 2 components: COMP1, COMP2
- Set a vendor on COMP2 and the dropship route
- Create and confirm an SO for 1 unit of your kit
- Validate the ship and pick for COMP1
- Confirm the PO for COMP2 and validate the associated dropship
#### > The qty_delivered on the sol is still at 0

### Cause of the issue:

The `delivered_qty` is computed via the `_prepare_qty_delivered`: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/9b9ff3ddcba6f0c9d37d08fb4fb900bed3b396a4/addons/sale/models/sale_order_line.py#L887-L902 However, since at least on of the component is dropshipped, the qty_delivered is computed by this condition: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/9b9ff3ddcba6f0c9d37d08fb4fb900bed3b396a4/addons/sale_mrp/models/sale_order_line.py#L54-L63 Which is 0 since the pick `location_dest_id.usage` is not `customer`.

### Additional issue:

The delivered quantity of a Kit with at least one dropshipped component can only be 0 or the full demand.

- In the settings enable Dropshipping
- Create a kit product with 2 components: COMP1, COMP2
- Set a vendor on COMP2 and the dropship route
- Create and confirm an SO for 3 unit of your kit
- Validate the delivery for COMP1 for 2 units and backorder
- Confirm the PO for COMP2 and validate the associated dropship for 1 unit and do not backorder
#### > The qty_delivered on the sol is 0 instead of 1
- Cancel the backorder for COMP1
### > The qty_delivered on the sol is 3 instead of 1

### Cause of the issue:

This is caused by the exact same dropship computation: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/9b9ff3ddcba6f0c9d37d08fb4fb900bed3b396a4/addons/sale_mrp/models/sale_order_line.py#L63-L66

### Note:

The behavior should be consistent if the components are fully dropshipped or MTO buy and as such they should not be considered to be in all or nothing shipping policy.

opw-6040640

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#258739
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#257617

**Steps to Reproduce:**
- Create a new database.
- Install any module (for example, Sale).
- Go to Settings → Technical → Database Structure → Fields.
- Create a new field using Studio or manually.
- Set the field as a related field using a path that includes a non-stored field (e.g., product_variant_id.active where product_variant_id is non-stored). Save the field.

**Issue:**
- Odoo allows defining related fields that depend on non-stored (non-searchable) fields in the dependency chain.

- This leads to runtime issues such as:
    - Cannot convert field to SQL because it is not stored
    - Failures in search, domains, and reporting
    - Inconsistent behavior depending on usage context

- Currently, no validation prevents users from configuring such invalid related fields.

**Solution:**
- Add validation in the related field resolution logic to ensure that all fields In the related path are stored.

- Raise a ValidationError when a non-stored field is encountered in the related path, clearly indicating the offending field and model.

This prevents invalid related field configurations at creation time and ensures data consistency and predictable behavior across ORM operations.

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

Current behavior before PR:

Desired behavior after PR is merged:




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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#259309

…e_journal_ids and it differs from the current journal_id

This resolves an issue that occurs when a user changes the invoice’s company and only one suitable_journal_ids is available. In such cases, the journal_id is not displayed, preventing the user from updating it. As a result, the following error appears: "Invoice belongs to company 'A' while 'Journal' (journal_id: 'Journal of Another Company') belongs to another company."

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

The Invoice Journal is not displayed when the Invoice’s Company is changed, preventing the user from updating it. This leads to the error: "Invoice belongs to company 'A' while 'Journal' (journal_id: 'Journal of Another Company') belongs to another company."

Current behavior before PR:

When there is only one suitable Journal for the Invoice after changing the Company, the Journal field is hidden, even if the current Journal value does not match the suitable one. This prevents the user from updating the Journal.

Desired behavior after PR is merged:

When there is only one suitable Journal for the Invoice after changing the Company, the Journal field should be displayed if it differs from the only suitable Journal, allowing the user to update it.


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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#259573

**Issue**:
Even when creation of new Serial Numbers for components is disabled
on the Manufacturing Operation Type, it is still possible to create
them from the shopfloor application.

**Steps to reproduce**:
- Enable "Lots & Serial Numbers", on the global settings
- Create two products, one tracked by unique serial number
- Go to Inventory > Configuration > Warehouse Management > Operations Types
- Select Manufacturing and disable "Create New Lots/Serial Numbers for Components"
- Create and confirm a MO using the tracked product as component
- Go to shopfloor
- Click the "+" button next to the component, then "New"
-> No error is raised when creating a serial number

**Cause**:
The `_check_create` constraint relies on `active_mo_id`:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/494cdcfdf4ec166e0a643ee70a53c12c810d02b4/addons/mrp/models/stock_lot.py#L11-L19
However, the shopfloor does not pass this, in context:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/54c6252a0e13b11fc297b6828883923c0f89881a/mrp_workorder/static/src/mrp_display/mrp_record_line/stock_move.js#L193-L199

As a result, the check is bypassed.

opw-6041241

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#111408

1. Send an invoice that will return an error when send to IAP
2. Send the invoice
3. Click "Fetch Peppol Invoice status" on the dashboard
4. There is a traceback (see the bottom of this message)

To create an invoice that will return an error I locally removed the EndpointID from the UBL generation (and the constraint to check that during the genreation).

```
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/odoo/http.py", line 2167, in _transactioning
    return service_model.retrying(func, env=self.env)
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/odoo/service/model.py", line 157, in retrying
    result = func()
             ^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/odoo/http.py", line 2134, in _serve_ir_http
    response = self.dispatcher.dispatch(rule.endpoint, args)
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/odoo/http.py", line 2382, in dispatch
    result = self.request.registry['ir.http']._dispatch(endpoint)
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/odoo/addons/base/models/ir_http.py", line 333, in _dispatch
    result = endpoint(**request.params)
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/odoo/http.py", line 754, in route_wrapper
    result = endpoint(self, *args, **params_ok)
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/addons/web/controllers/dataset.py", line 42, in call_button
    action = call_kw(request.env[model], method, args, kwargs)
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/odoo/api.py", line 535, in call_kw
    result = getattr(recs, name)(*args, **kwargs)
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/addons/account_peppol/models/account_journal.py", line 34, in peppol_get_message_status
    edi_users._peppol_get_message_status()
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/addons/account_peppol/models/account_edi_proxy_user.py", line 287, in _peppol_get_message_status
    processed_message_uuids = edi_user._peppol_process_messages_status(messages_to_process, uuid_to_record)
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/addons/account_peppol_response/models/account_edi_proxy_user.py", line 180, in _peppol_process_messages_status
    peppol_response = uuid_to_record[uuid]
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
KeyError: 'document_type'
```

task-None

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#259834

### Problem:
When returning a delivery or receipt for an inter-company transaction, the journal entry created for the return will account on the opposite stock interim account. That is, a delivery to another company will debit the stock output account, but returning the delivery will create an account move that credits the stock input account. Compare this to normal return behavior which will credit the stock output account to reverse the original delivery's entry.

### Solution:
When deciding whether a stock move is a return, we will include transit locations as valid locations.

### Steps to reproduce (Runbot v18)
- Automatic accounting
1. Create a SO for the automatically accounted product, selling to another company in the system
2. Validate the delivery, check the valuation and note there is a debit on the stock output account
3. Create a return for the delivery and validate it, check the valuation and note the credit on the stock input account

To clarify, this differs from when the customer on the SO is anything other than a res.company, where we will see a credit on the stock output account when the return is validated.
Also, this flow is the same for POs, and the same bug is addressed by this fix.

### Before
<table>
	<th>Move type</th>
	<th>Account</th>
	<th>Debit</th>
	<th>Credit</th>
	<tr>
		<td>Delivery</td>
		<td>Stock output</td>
		<td>100</td>
		<td>0</td>
	</tr>
	<tr>
		<td>Delivery Return</td>
		<td style="{color: red}">Stock input</td>
		<td>0</td>
		<td>100</td>
	</tr>
</table>

### After
(Or normal behavior without inter-company transfer)
<table>
	<th>Move type</th>
	<th>Account</th>
	<th>Debit</th>
	<th>Credit</th>
	<tr>
		<td>Delivery</td>
		<td>Stock output</td>
		<td>100</td>
		<td>0</td>
	</tr>
	<tr>
		<td>Delivery Return</td>
		<td>Stock output</td>
		<td>0</td>
		<td>100</td>
	</tr>
</table>

opw-5993147

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#255439

**Problem:**
Clicking on the Analytic Distribution field in the expense form triggers a traceback: "Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'fields')".

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Enable Analytic Accounting in Settings > Accounting
2. Go to Expenses > New
3. Click on the Analytic Distribution field
4. Observe the JS error in the console

**Current behavior:**
TypeError: Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'fields') in HrExpenseFormRenderer.getBoxType

**Expected behavior:**
Clicking the Analytic Distribution field should not cause any error.

**Cause of the issue:**
The `ExtractMixinFormRenderer` mixin listens to all `focusin` events and calls `getBoxType` to determine the OCR box type for the focused field. When a nested widget like `AnalyticDistribution` gains focus, `getFullFieldName` returns a dot-separated name (e.g. `analytic_distribution.x_plan_id`), causing the code to enter the dotted-name branch in `getBoxType`:
`this.props.record.data[parentField]?._config.fields[fieldName]` The `analytic_distribution` data is a JSON object, not a relational record, so it has no `_config` property. Optional chaining on `data[parentField]` prevents a crash when the field is missing, but the missing `?.` on `_config` causes `undefined.fields` to throw.

**Fix:**
Adding optional chaining on `_config` is consistent with the existing defensive pattern already used on the same line for `data[parentField]?` and `[fieldName]?.type`. This makes `getBoxType` gracefully return no box type for non-relational nested fields, which is correct since OCR box overlay is not applicable to them.

opw-6108576