### Issue:
Some strict validators, such as the German XRechnung validator, reject generated documents because the `EmbeddedDocumentBinaryObject` contains leading and trailing whitespace

### Cause:
Before 18.4, `_postprocess_invoice_ubl_xml()` used f-strings to generate the XML content

With this formatting, the result of:
`base64.b64encode(attachment_values['raw']).decode()` was indented together with the XML block, introducing unwanted whitespace and line breaks inside `EmbeddedDocumentBinaryObject`

### Steps to reproduce:
- Install `l10n_de` and switch to the DE Company
- In Settings, enable Peppol and Activate Electronic Invoicing
- Create and confirm an Invoice (Customer: DE Company, any product line with tax)
- Send the invoice via Peppol
- Check the generated XML attachment

### Before the fix:
The XML contains formatted content such as:
```xml
<cbc:EmbeddedDocumentBinaryObject mimeCode="application/pdf" filename="INV_2026_00005.pdf">
	content
</cbc:EmbeddedDocumentBinaryObject>
```
This formatting introduces leading/trailing whitespace and may be rejected by strict validators.

### After the fix:
The XML is generated without extra whitespace:
```xml
<cbc:EmbeddedDocumentBinaryObject mimeCode="application/pdf" filename="INV_2026_00005.pdf">content</cbc:EmbeddedDocumentBinaryObject>
```

opw-6121616

When generating a VAT return with an unclaimed tax amount carried to the
next month, the carryover reimbursement move amounts are computed with
an incorrect ratio.

Steps to reproduce:
- Create and post a bill in May containing a VAT amount.
- Create and post a bill in June containing a VAT amount.
- Create a VAT return for May to carry over the VAT amount to the next
  month.
- Create a VAT return for June, requesting the full VAT amount to be
  reimbursed.
- Validate and send the June VAT return.
- Check the generated reimbursement move

Issue: Line values does not correspond to anything real/tangible.  It
occurs because when computing the ratio for the move we check the last
tax report entry, where we find the amount of tax from the past months
and a line balancing the last month that should not be taken into
account.  The "Balance tax current account (receivable)" line from the
tax closing entry is mistakenly picked up as a tax carried forward line,
throwing off the amounts.

opw-5961836

**Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:**
The `WebsiteEvent._getEventObjectId` method lacks a specific match case for the root directory, causing event ID retrieval to fail on the homepage.

In order to resolve this, I've implemented a default return of 0 when the URL pattern matching fails [following the pattern established by later revisions of this code](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/2199f71070ce3e9a4717eb6b750c14485406f7aa/addons/website_event/static/src/website_builder/event_page_option_plugin.js#L67).

**Steps to reproduce bug:**
1. Create an event website
2. Create an event and visit it
3. On the page click Site > Properties
4. Enable `Is Homepage`
5. Return to the homepage of the application and open the editor

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OpCUAp4LJKqkoStciWeJEGVVlR3qpw1R/view?usp=drive_link

**Current behavior before PR:**

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c7ACqaQx03mePzJSV_RoPn8mlLWSMa1I/view?usp=drive_link

**Desired behavior after PR is merged:**

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L3Ne9h6-yB3v7VbXipjly9OrDSkZvDOu/view?usp=drive_link

opw-6101680

### Issue:
When changing the delivery date (used as the Hungarian exchange rate date), some journal lines could be recomputed incorrectly, leading to unbalanced entries

### Cause:
`expected_currency_rate` was recomputed when `delivery_date` changed, but the new value was never automatically applied

In addition, after https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/225407, `_sync_tax_lines` partially updated the lines:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f5501e5c8dcf60444077912db4c87e7a3f2654a6/addons/account/models/account_move.py#L3029-L3031
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f5501e5c8dcf60444077912db4c87e7a3f2654a6/addons/account/models/account_move.py#L1633-L1637
These methods reapply the previous tax rate, causing base and tax lines to be updated inconsistently
As a result, when the base amount increases, the tax amount decreases, and vice versa

### Steps to reproduce:
- Install `l10n_hu_edi` and `accountant` with demo data, then switch to the `HU company`
- Go to Currencies → USD and add two rates:
April 5: HUF per Unit = 100
April 6: HUF per Unit = 150
- Create an Invoice: (Any customer, Currency: USD, Line: Price = 1000, Tax = 27%)
- Open the Journal Items and duplicate the browser tab for comparison
- In the duplicated tab, change the Delivery Date to April 5 and save
- Change the Delivery Date back to today and compare both tabs

### Before the fix:
The values differ between both tabs because the tax lines keeps the old exchange rate

opw-5801126

Steps to reproduce the bug:
- Log in as Mitchel Admin
- Create a storable product “P1”
    - Create a bill of materials: - Component: 2 units - Miscellaneous > Project: - Select any project

- Create a manufacturing order:
    - Select the BoM
    - Confirm the MO
    - Set Qty to Produce to 1 unit → an analytic account is created

- Set the following access rights for Marc Demo:
    - Accounting: Administrator - Timesheets: User (Own timesheets only) - MRP: User

- Log in as Marc Demo
- Open the MO created by Mitchel Admin
- Try to update the Qty to Produce to 2

Problem:
A user error is raised:
"You cannot access timesheets that are not yours."

→  The restriction is applied even if the analytic line is not a timesheet entry.

Solution:
Restrict access only if the analytic line corresponds to a timesheet entry.

We cannot use the `is_timesheet`` field because it is implemented in the
`timesheet_grid`` module, and the `hr_timesheet` module does not depend
on it.

opw-4724262

Steps to reproduce
1. Set the company's partner timezone to a negative UTC offset (e.g. America/Argentina/Buenos_Aires, UTC-3).
2. Create a sale order for a storable subscription product and confirm it.
3. Open the generated delivery order and check its Scheduled Date.

Issue
The scheduled date on the first delivery renders as the previous day. `_prepare_procurement_values` writes `date_planned` as `current_period_start`, which is a plain `fields.Date` value
(https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/ba41d7de3c0474286e3e9319710fdacfb95d3e2c/sale_subscription_stock/models/sale_order_line.py#L156). When a `date` is stored in the `Datetime` column `stock.move.date`, Odoo anchors it at midnight UTC; in any negative-offset timezone this renders as the previous day (e.g. `2022-03-02 00:00 UTC` shows as `2022-03-01 21:00` in UTC-3). The non-subscription path does not hit this because it resolves `date_planned` through `_expected_date()`, which returns `order_id.date_order` — a full `Datetime` set to `fields.Datetime.now()` at confirmation (https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/996702b0d5c518db2ac6f0b144e7835b27c29736/addons/sale/models/sale_order_line.py#L1398).

The same midnight-UTC drift also affects later recurrences, where `current_period_start` falls back to `last_invoice_date` — another `Date`.

Solution
Split the two cases explicitly:
- First delivery (`last_invoice_date` unset): set `date_planned` to `order_id.date_order`, matching the non-subscription flow.
- Subsequent deliveries: localize `last_invoice_date` at `00:00` in the company timezone before converting back to UTC, reusing the pattern already applied to reordering rules (https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/20a0eee2d03293564320c268252a0353781d99ea/addons/stock/models/stock_orderpoint.py#L722).

opw-6133831

Payment reminders are not sent to the duplicate of a subscription when a reminder has already been sent for the original subscription

Steps to reproduce:
1. Install Subscriptions
2. Create a new subscription for customer Acme Corporation with product Office Cleaning Service (SUB), a Monthly recurring plan and in the Other Info tab, set the subscription Start Date to one week ago
3. Confirm the subscription
4. Go to Scheduled Actions and run the action "Sale Subscription: send reminder for subscriptions with no token"
5. Go back to the previously created subscription (see that a reminder email has been added in the chatter)
6. Duplicate the subscription and confirm the duplicate
7. Run the action "Sale Subscription: send reminder for subscriptions with no token" again
8. There are no reminder for the duplicate subscription

Issue:
The copy of a subscription uses the same `last_reminder_date`, preventing payment reminders to be sent here
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/5a2ab62254cd5f684a3b1a0d7c0001b888c70d08/sale_subscription/models/sale_order.py#L2114-L2120

Solution:
Set `copy=False` on the field `last_reminder_date`

opw-6167356

## Issue
When generating a payslip for an employee of a company located in Colorado, the *CO State Income Tax* could end up positive.

## Steps to reproduce
1. Install *United States - Payroll* (`l10n_us_hr_payroll`)
2. Set the current company's State to Colorado
3. Create an employee and a contract
    - Wage: $0
    - (Set the contract's status to *Running*)
    - (In the payroll tab) State Withholding Allowance: $1000
4. Create a Payslip for the employee
    - Structure: *"United States: Regular Pay"*
5. Compute Sheet
6. **In the _Salary Computation_ tab, the _CO State Income Tax_ line has a positive value**

## Justification
This fix is similar to the one applied for the AL(abama) state income tax by https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/f0eeb55f1e3cf965c6a409675813d4a699e5fca6. That modification was justified by CAS (PO of US localizations for Payroll) in opw-5137280:

> *"Payroll taxes are always funds withheld from employee's paychecks, if there is a positive value it means the tax is a refund, not a withholding. Refunds happen when individuals file their income."*

## Note to reviewer
The test [`test_069_al_state_tax_0_income`](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/219d2a797ee2099c9d77c2defc9c9c5e1d504ffe/test_l10n_us_hr_payroll_account/tests/test_salary_rules.py#L957-L989) (added by the aforementioned commit https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/f0eeb55f1e3cf965c6a409675813d4a699e5fca6) is wrongly indented and thus never executed. The test passes with the dedicated fix, and fails without it, as expected. Let me know if you want me to indent it correctly (in this commit or in an additional one).



opw-5999856