During the upgrade from XML-based feeds to the new JSON Listings API for stock management, we chose to use Amazon's API to fetch a listing's fulfillment channel information. However, Amazon does not provide a clear answer for a given listing. After some research, we assumed an offer was FBM when the listing contained a `merchant_shipping_group`, because this setting is specific to FBM listings. See also e6d620e4b200cadabb00ce37ab03289cfeb4ae58.

This assumption was flawed: Amazon can keep the shipping group even after a listing switches to FBA, which can block stock synchronization.

This commit uses the `fulfillmentAvailability` field from the Listings API instead. This field stores the available quantity for each fulfillment channel in which the listing is sold.

When multiple fulfillment channels are present, the offer defaults to FBM so stock synchronization can continue. The
`sale_amazon_channel_management` module can then be installed to manually select and disambiguate the channel.

This commit also upgrades the patching method used to update the FBM stock to ensure user specific configuration aren't overriden during the synchronization.

opw-6064896
opw-5152359

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#115899
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#114473

When both `accountant` and `knowledge` are installed, the `accountant_knowledge` module is automatically added and extends the `knowledge.article` model. It introduces a link from articles to audit reports via the `audit_report_id` field (see: `audit_report_id` field).

Currently, only users in the `account.group_account_user` group have full CRUD access to audit reports. Users outside this group may encounter access errors when loading an article or a template. This happens because the ORM attempts to read the `audit_report_id` field, but fails due to insufficient permissions on the related model.

To resolve this, new access rules and record rules will be introduced on the `audit.report` model so that its permissions are derived from the linked article. The user should then no longer get an access error when loading the `audit_report_id` field from an article or a template.

Thanks to these new security rules, audit reports that users cannot access will be hidden from the interface. This improves the overall user experience and prevents errors, such as crashes when attempting to open the article linked to the audit report.

opw-6067390

Issue
-----
Putting a max weight on a package type causes getting a rate with Sendcloud to fail.

Steps to reproduce
-----
- Setup Mondial Relay using Sendcloud
- Set a default package type with max weight 2kg
- Create a product with a 500g weight
- Create a SO with the product
- Add delivery
	- Sendcloud Mondial Relay
	- Get rate

> Impossible to get a rate

Cause
-----
When retrieving the shipping method to use when retrieving a rate, we use the real weight of the order.

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/cca1433f5a064673b8e007530e20e8a9fe72949b/delivery_sendcloud/models/sendcloud_service.py#L67 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/cca1433f5a064673b8e007530e20e8a9fe72949b/delivery_sendcloud/models/sendcloud_service.py#L81

However, when making the rate call, we use the value returned by `_split_shipping`

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/cca1433f5a064673b8e007530e20e8a9fe72949b/delivery_sendcloud/models/sendcloud_service.py#L91

which is equal to the maximum weight of the package. This is blocking in some cases, like if
- the real weight is 750g
- the package max is 2kg
- Sendcloud returns a shipping method for [500g;1kg]

Asking a rate for this method & a 2kg package will fail (rightfully so).

Solution
-----
The shipment should be split into packages before retrieving the shipping methods. Otherwise the problem might be the other way around where we retrieve a shipping method for the whole order, only to split it into multiple packages because they don't fit in one.

Also, the `shipping_weight` returned by `_split_shipping` should only be different from the order's total weight if it is higher than the maximum deliverable weight.

-----
Ticket:
opw-5947199

**Steps-to-Reproduce**
- In v19, install subscriptions.
- create new subscription + service product with allow one time sale enabled.
- make a SO with that product,any reccuring plan and any end date. 
```
id |  name  | subscription_state | next_invoice_date |  end_date  
----+--------+--------------------+-------------------+------------
  1 | S00001 | 1_draft            |                   | 2026-05-02
```

- confirm the SO
```
 id |  name  | subscription_state | next_invoice_date |  end_date  
----+--------+--------------------+-------------------+------------
  1 | S00001 | 3_progress         | 2026-05-01        | 2026-05-02
```
- remove its recurring plan (some product sold for months for testing then converted to one time sale )
```
 id |  name  | subscription_state | next_invoice_date |  end_date  
----+--------+--------------------+-------------------+------------
  1 | S00001 | 3_progress         |                   | 2026-05-02
```

- upgrade to v19.1 will fail or opening sales > To Invoice > Orders To Invoice gives this error or add amount_to_invoice in list view using studio to produce in v19 :
```
File "/home/odoo/odoo18/enterprise/sale_subscription/models/sale_order_line.py",
 line 175, in _compute_amount_to_invoice
    and (not order.end_date or order.next_invoice_date < order.end_date)
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
TypeError: '<' not supported between instances of 'bool' and 'datetime.date'
```

- upgrade failing for v19.1 because amount_to_invoice added to list view [here](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/427232efd121410380b62acf4fd2e9ee369e6542#diff-48cb4309a6006f91b2b40e4c1049860218d419fce1782c7dcc278329803129caR193-R213).

upg - [4220658](https://upgrade.odoo.com/odoo/upgrade.request/4220658)
opw - [6128033](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project/70/tasks/6128033)

## Issue
When creating an invoice for a sale order with a recurring plan using a `billing_period_value` >= 1 and aligning, that value is not taken into account, and the invoice only covers one unit of time (week/month/year).

## Steps to reproduce
1. Install *Subscriptions* (`sale_subscription`)
2. Create a Recurring Plan RP:
    - *Billing Period*: 6 Months
    - *Align to Period Start*: Checked
3. Create a Subscription Product P
4. Create a Subscription SO:
    - Any Customer
    - Recurring Plan RP
    - Product P (any quantity/price)
5. Confirm the SO and create the invoice
6. **In the line of the SO, only one month is covered by the invoice. If we generate the next invoice, only one month will be covered as well.**

## Cause
Since https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/45f28f6c288f5213a4e29c816ec68d2c3966b55f, the `next_date_1st` is evaluated by taking the last day of the month/year and incrementing it by one day, to reach the first day of the next month/year.

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/2d2056766441157dc45ebc37b677841c44e5c513/sale_subscription/models/sale_order_line.py#L377-L382

This is inaccurate when working with recurring plan which are not monthly/yearly, as it will always set the `next_date_1st` to the next month/year, without taking in account the `billing_period_value`.

## Fix
There are two ways to align dates to the period start. Given a subscription starting on January 15, with a billing period of 3 months, we could:
1. Invoice from January 15 to January 31, then from February 1 to April 30. This aligns the invoice to the closest month, then apply the 3 months period for the next invoices.
2. Invoice from January 15 to March 31, then from April 1 to June 30. This applies most of the billing period for the first invoice, while still aligning it to the start of the month, then apply the 3 months period normally for the next invoices.

**Here, we chose the second option** to avoid making the code more complex and keep the diff minimal.

opw-6151530

**Steps to Reproduce:**
1. Install `hr_contract_salary_payroll` with demo data.
2. Open Employee (e.g; Abigail Peterson) > Payroll tab > Gear Icon > Edit Properties.
3. Add a new property for Payroll and fill in the value also.
4. Go to Payroll > Configuration > Benefits.
5. Create a new benefit with:
   Salary Structure Type: Worker
   Cost Field: Payroll Properties (Employee Contract)
6. Save the record.

Video: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gHRkDW5G0bURlo9_IRgCnvqpE-8Fk1xa/view?usp=drive_link

**Error:**
`TypeError - unsupported operand type(s) for +: 'int' and 'Property'`

**Cause:**
The method `_get_benefits_costs()` directly sums values using: 
```
self[benefit.cost_field]
```
When the selected cost field is a property field, it returns a **fields_properties.Property** object instead of a numeric value, and this object is not directly compatible with the arithmetic sum operation.

Before 19.0, property fields were not allowed to be selected as a cost field - [1].

**Fix:**
This commit prevents selecting property fields as cost fields from the list of supported field types.

[1] : https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/04224abcc7eec1c81df7ad57a9213fd091774888/hr_contract_salary/models/hr_version.py#L183

sentry-7388663038