In Mexico, the basic salary must be calculated based on the total calendar days of the period. This ensures that both worked days and non-working days (e.g. Sundays) contribute equally to the total payment. This calculation also applies to the daily schedule, as the proportional daily wage must be divided equivalently across the hours of the day.

Current behavior:
When an employee has an unpaid leave, the basic salary is incorrectly prorated using only the registered days/hours.
Example: For a monthly wage of 30,000 MXN in a month with 22 scheduled days (21 attendances + 1 unpaid leave), the implicit daily rate becomes 1,363.63 (30,000 / 22). This leads to an incorrect basic salary of 28,636.36 MXN for the days worked. This also happens with unpaid leave for x hours, e.g., for 2 hours, the unpaid leave is calculated as 2 hours * (30,000 / (22 days * 8 hours)) = 340.90 MXN, which is incorrect.

Expected behavior:
The basic salary should be derived from the full period (e.g., 30 days for a month, 15 for a bi-weekly period).
Example: For a 30,000 MXN wage, the daily rate should be 1,000 MXN (30,000 / 30 days). If there is 1 unpaid leave, the basic salary should be 29,000 MXN (29 days * 1,000 MXN), regardless of the number of scheduled working days in the calendar. For unpaid leaves by hours, e.g., for 2 hours, the unpaid leave should be calculated as 2 hours * (30,000 / (30 days * 8 hours)) = 250.00 MXN.

To achieve this, the calculation of the days in the `_get_worked_day_lines` is:
* Adjust worked days/hours for out-of-contract entries where necessary, ensuring that rest days(Sundays) are included in the count.
* Get all worked hours in the lines.
* Calculate the number of days to pay based on the total hours and the hours per day.

### Case: payslip does not cover the complete pay period
Current behavior:
If a payslip is created for a partial period, the total amount is the full period wage.

Expected behavior:
The total amount should be pro-rated based on the days of the period. For example, if a payslip is created for 25 days(with a monthly schedule pay), the total amount should be the daily salary multiplied by 25 days.

To achieve this, `_compute_amount` is updated to calculate the wage based on the `l10n_mx_daily_salary`.

Changes on tests:
* Add:
  * `test_monthly_payslip_with_partial_leave`, `test_partial_payslip`, `test_partial_payslip_new_hire_month_31_days` and `test_partial_payslip_new_hire_month_28_days`.
  * `test_hourly_payslip_by_attendance` to validate when `Work Entry Source` is set to "attendance".
* Update:
  * `test_hourly_payslip`, `test_monthly_payslip` and `test_partial_payslip_new_hire` to align with the new calculation.
  * Adjust payslips dates to match the `schedule_pay` in `test_regular_payslip_subsidy` and `test_weekly_schedule_pay_no_code`
  * Fix a one-day difference in `TestMxEdiHrPayrollCommon`(16 days instead of 15 days for a bi-weekly schedule), and update the corresponding CFDI values.
* Refactor tests and add new helpers.

### Error on [warning issues generation][1] and [`_compute_is_wrong_duration`][2]

The warning: `"The duration of the payslip is not accurate according to the structure type."` appears with these custom periods for Mexican Payroll, although the period is correct:
* `10_days`
* `14_days`
* `bi-weekly`

Steps to replicate:
* Install `l10n_mx_hr_payroll` module.
* Switch to "INNOVACION VALOR Y DESARROLLO SA SA" company.
* Go to Employees and open "Cesar Osbaldo Cruz Solorzano".
* Click on "Payroll" tab, change the "Pay Schedule" to any option listed above, for example "Bi-weekly".
* Go to Payroll > Payslips > Payslips and create a new pay run.
* Select Salary Structure 'Mexico: Regular Pay', Pay Schedule 'Bi-weekly' and the Period '01/01/2026 -> 01/15/2026'.
* Click on "Continue", select Cesar and click on "Select".
* It appears the warning issue.

Problem:
The warning is raised because of `slip.date_from + slip._get_schedule_timedelta() != slip.date_to` condition, because `_get_schedule_timedelta` function calls [`self._schedule_timedelta(schedule, self.date_from)`][3] without the `country_code` argument.
In the Mexican Payroll [_schedule_timedelta is overriden][4] but it is necessary to call it with the country code to use the custom periods; similar to how the [`date_end` is computed][5].

Solution:
Call `_get_schedule_timedelta` passing the `country_code`

[1]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/1666ac87b6cb40e904210fecd159df3ac5b6b33a/hr_payroll/models/hr_payslip.py#L1367
[2]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/1666ac87b6cb40e904210fecd159df3ac5b6b33a/hr_payroll/models/hr_payslip.py#L1454
[3]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/1666ac87b6cb40e904210fecd159df3ac5b6b33a/hr_payroll/models/hr_payslip.py#L275
[4]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/1666ac87b6cb40e904210fecd159df3ac5b6b33a/l10n_mx_hr_payroll/models/hr_payslip.py#L58
[5]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/1666ac87b6cb40e904210fecd159df3ac5b6b33a/hr_payroll/models/hr_payslip_run.py#L211

target: 19.0
task-6073601

### Steps to reproduce:
	- Install project_timesheet_forecast module
	- Configure your database to have a far timezone (Montevideo/Uruguay in my case)
	- Create a public holiday starts from 12AM to 11:59PM with a calendar
	- Create a planning slot for a resource that overlap with the public holiday
	- Check the Timesheets / Planning analysis report
	- Group by employees > day 
	**- Check the date of the public holiday and notice there are still planned hours shown**
	- Remove the calendar from the public holidays that we created previously
	- Check the report once again 
	**- Notice the day of the public holiday and the day after has no planned hours**

### Cause:
In the query we are using to exclude the leave days from the report we only exclude the ones that has calendar_id assigned, not taking into consideration that some of the public holiday are general and is not applied to just one working schedule.

Also if we have a leave starting midnight to 11:59PM since we store dates in database as UTC for timezone like Uruguay's one it will shift the end with one day which will introduce inconsistencies

### Fix:
We check if the calendar_id is null on the resource_calendar_leaves and make sure we take timezone of the resource into account when checking the dates of the leaves.

opw-5027070

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#111846

## Issue
Currently, the Barcode app doesn't work very well when the user scans packaging and lots. If they want to apply one or multiple packagings to a specific lot, the quantity is not quite exact since scanning a lot
already increases the quantity by 1.
Also, if there is multiple lots, the packaging quantity isn't added to the last scanned lot which is problematic.

## How to reproduce
1. Active "Units of Measure & Packagings" and "Lots & Serial Numbers"    settings;
2. Create a product tracked by lots with a barcode;
3. In the "Sales" tab, add a packagings (for example, "Pack of 6");
4. Configuration > Units & Packagings > Selected the added UoM > Click on "Packaging Barcodes";
5. Create a new barcode for the created product;
6. Create and confirm a receipt for 12 units of this product and open the operation in Barcode app;
7. Scan the product's barcode, then a lot then the packaging barcode
   :arrow_right: First issue: the line has 7 units.
8. Scan a second lot and scan the packaging again
   :arrow_right: Second issue: the packaging quantity is added to the first line, not the second one.

## Explanation
About the first issue, it is the expected behavior. When the user scans a lot, we increase the line quantity by 1. When the user scans a packaging, we increase the line quantity by this packaging quantity.
The issue here is the user expects to scan a lot and then to apply a packaging quantity to it. For example, scanning a lot then a pack of six should result by a line with 6 units, not 7.

About the second issue, it is caused by some conditions in the `_findLine` method which don't prioritize the right line.

[OPW-6045395](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project.task/6045395)

Issue
-----
When using full packaging in barcode, leaving the operation and opening it again shows incorrect quantity for already scanned packages.

Steps to reproduce
-----
- Enable packages
- Create a product with one package in stock
- Operation Types > Delivery Orders, set Move Entire Packages to true
- Create a delivery for a package
- Scan the package barcode
- Exit the delivery
- Re-enter the delivery

> Quantity for the line is 1/false

Cause
-----
The line is picked, so it is considered as not reserved

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/02f957b600bac3d86411091fd762d88e372db7c5/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_picking_model.js#L288-L289

when doing

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/02f957b600bac3d86411091fd762d88e372db7c5/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_picking_model.js#L812-L813

This leads to `qtyDemand` returning false instead of 1

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/02f957b600bac3d86411091fd762d88e372db7c5/stock_barcode/static/src/components/package_line.js#L17-L18

-----
Ticket:
opw-5960629

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#114451
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#113816

Why this commit:
When loading the 'bills to receive' or 'Invoices to be Issued' The time zones ahead of UTC will face the discrepancy in the view.

e.g. etc/GMT-12 timezone is 12 hours ahead of UTC, So 12 AM UTC is 12 PM etc/GMT-12.
So report view will not include the invoices/bill with order_date of current day till its 12 AM[next day] IN UTC, Meaning etc/GMT-12 will be seeing today's bills/invoices  after 12 PM.

After this commit:
To resolve this discrepancy we use the context_today date to get the user
 local date. Which is required by the [domain sanitizer](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/8bff78853f6ab8dc2cc951c03bb30181c0745834/odoo/orm/domains.py#L1572-L1574) too.
 
 Steps to reproduce (Possible in runbot) :
1. Select etc/GMT-12 timezone in preferences
[when UTC is between 13:00-24:00 ~ 1:00-12:00 GMT-12(of next day)]
2. Create a PO and Validate the quantity received.
3. Go to accounting>review>bills to receive.
4. the newly created PO won't be listed here.

OPW: 6083526