Steps to reproduce:
- Install `Accounting` module
- Accounting > Configuration > Accounting Reports > Journal Report > Options > Set `Load More Limit` to 1
- Accounting > Review > Journal Audit > Expand Sales

Traceback: `KeyError: 'no_format'`

Cause:
This error occurs when we expand the lines. During the expansion, we [append] a `Load more...` pagination row inside the report lines. In that row, we pass empty [dictionaries] in
`columns`, like: `columns': [{}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}]`. and we have offset. So, after expanding, there are two lines, and the second one is the Load more line. Because its [columns] contain empty dictionaries, the `no_format` key is not found, which results in a `KeyError`.

Solution:
We are passing a `None` value if `no_format` is not present in the line's columns.

[append]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/34c60542d87366d50484c21bc0576bdc59517c5e/account_reports/models/account_report.py#L5765
[dictionaries]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/34c60542d87366d50484c21bc0576bdc59517c5e/account_reports/models/account_report.py#L5867-L5878
[columns]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/34c60542d87366d50484c21bc0576bdc59517c5e/account_reports/models/account_journal_report.py#L158

opw-6125082

…roup

Steps to reproduce:
 - Set a low value for `prefix_groups_threshold` in account reports so that lines are grouped by prefix (e.g. in databases with large volumes, such as 6k+ lines).
 - Open a report (e.g. Trial Balance or General Ledger).
 - Unfold a prefix group.

Issue:
   ```python
 File "/home/odoo/src/enterprise/account_reports/models/account_report.py",
 line 5718, in get_expanded_lines_readonly
 return self.get_expanded_lines(options, line_dict_id, groupby,
  expand_function_name, progress, offset, horizontal_split_side)
 File "/home/odoo/src/enterprise/account_reports/models/account_report.py",
  line 5707, in get_expanded_lines
 lines = self.env[self.custom_handler_model_name]._custom_line_postprocessor
  (self, options, lines)
 File "/home/odoo/src/enterprise/account_reports/models/account_general_ledger.py
  ", line 354, in _custom_line_postprocessor
 if report._parse_line_id(lines[0]['id'])[-1] ==
     ('', 'account.report.line', report.line_ids[0].id):
 IndexError: list index out of range

```
Cause:
    Prefix groups are built based on the displayed line name, which includes
 the account code (e.g. "401000 Sales"). However, during unfold, the
 filter was applied on `account_id.name`.

 As a result, applying a prefix like '4%' on `account_id.name` (e.g. "Sales")
 returned no records, leading to empty results and the above crash.

 Additionally, prefix grouping could create invalid or meaningless groups
 when the extracted prefix character was non-alphanumeric (e.g. spaces or
 special characters).

Fix:
 - This patch updates the unfold filtering logic to use `account_id.code` when grouping by `account_id`, ensuring that the prefix filter is applied on the correct field.
 - Skip non-alphanumeric prefix keys during grouping to avoid generating irrelevant or invalid groups.

opw - 6106726
upg - 3985833

### Issue:
Some DIAN XML files of type `AttachedDocument` are incorrectly imported, resulting in no extracted data

This issue only occurs for `AttachedDocument` files

According to the DIAN documentation, the `ProfileID` should contain the literal `Factura Electrónica de Venta` https://www.dian.gov.co/impuestos/factura-electronica/Documents/Anexo-Tecnico-Factura-Electronica-de-Venta-vr-1-9.pdf

However, no strict validation is enforced, so variants should still be supported

### Cause:
When importing a DIAN document of type `AttachedDocument`, `_get_import_file_type()` searches for a node starting with `DIAN 2.1:`

This causes issues with documents structured like:
```xml
<AttachedDocument>
	<CustomizationID>Documentos adjuntos</CustomizationID>
	<ProfileID>DIAN 2.1: Factura Electrónica de Venta</ProfileID>
</AttachedDocument>
```

In this case, `DIAN 2.1:` is detected first, causing the file to be identified as `account.edi.xml.ubl_dian`

As a result, the `<AttachedDocument>` wrapper is ignored and the importer tries to parse the file using the wrong structure, preventing any data extraction

The import should first detect the `<AttachedDocument>` structure, then unwrap and process the embedded document

### Steps to reproduce:
- Install `l10n_co_dian`
- Go in Bills and import the test document: `import_attached_document_2`

Before the fix, nothing it extracted from the xml

opw-6083523

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#115599

Several error are logged in the chatter when signing a payslip that includes an IMSS incapacity time off.

Steps to reproduce:
* Install l10n_mx_hr_payroll_account modules
* Switch to "INNOVACION VALOR Y DESARROLLO SA SA" company
* Go to Employees and open Cesar Osbaldo Cruz Solorzano
* Click on "Time Off" smart button and create a new time off with
  "Disability due to illness (IMSS)" type for "02/01/2026"(Any date).
* Go to Payroll > Payslips > Payslips and create a new pay run
* Select Salary Structure 'Mexico: Regular Pay', Pay Schedule 'Monthly'
  and the Period '01/01/2026 -> 01/31/2026'
* Click on Continue, select Cesar and click on Select
* Open the payslip, click on "Validate" and "Ok"
* Mark as paid, open the "Journal Entry" from the smart button and click
  on "Post".
* Back to the payslip, and click on "Generate CFDI" button.
* An error is added to the chatter.

### Missing node to declare disabilities
Translated message
```py
An error occurred while signing the CFDI document with the government:
Code: NOM111 Message: Unclassified error. Extra Info: The "Incapacidades"
(Disabilities) node must be reported if the perception key 014
"Subsidios por Incapacidad" (Disability Subsidies) is included, or if
the deduction key 006 "Descuento por incapacidad" (Disability Deduction)
is included.
```

Legal Context:
According to Mexican law, IMSS disabilities must be declared in a specific XML node.

There are two primary scenarios for reporting these amounts:
* Deduction (Type 006): The employer does not pay for these days, as the IMSS is responsible for the payment to the employee. This is the most common scenario.

* Perception (Type 014): The employer pays for these days as a superior benefit. For example, by law, the IMSS does not pay for the first 3 days of a disability due to illness, and employers are not obligated to cover them either. However, companies offering superior benefits may choose to pay these days as a "Disability Subsidy."

Solution:
The chosen approach is to configure the Deduction node.
For the `l10n_mx_regular_pay_imss_disabilities` rule, the `l10n_mx_concept` has been set to `l10n_mx_concept_d6` (D06 - Disability Deduction). This ensures the required node is added.

### Missing "ImporteMonetario" attribute
Translated message
```
An error occurred while signing the CFDI document with the government:
Code: NOM95 Message: The attribute "Deduccion:Importe" does not match
the sum of the "Incapacidad:ImporteMonetario" nodes, as the key
expressed in "Nomina.Deducciones.Deduccion.TipoDeduccion" is "006".
```

Problem:
The "Incapacidades" node requires the "ImporteMonetario" attribute, which should represent the sum of the monetary value associated with the disabilities.

Solution:
Add the "ImporteMonetario" attribute and calculate its value using `l10n_mx_daily_salary`.

### Invalid "DiasIncapacidad" format
```py
An error occurred while signing the CFDI document with the government:
Code : 301 Message : XML mal formado Extra Info : Element
'{http://www.sat.gob.mx/nomina12}Incapacidad', attribute
'DiasIncapacidad': '4.0' is not a valid value of the local atomic type.
```

Problem:
Altough the defaultdict where the values are sum up, `number_of_days` is a float field, and when we get back the value, it is a float, adding for example 4.0 instead of 4, which is not a valid value.

Solution:
Cast the value to int.

### Duplicate deduction on disabilities
```py
Wrong python code defined for:
- Employee: Cesar Osbaldo Cruz Solorzano
- Version: False
- Payslip: Salary Slip - Cesar Osbaldo Cruz Solorzano - 05/01/2026 - 05/15/2026
- Salary rule: ISR (Income Tax) (ISR)
- Error: TypeError('cannot unpack non-iterable NoneType object') while
evaluating
"
def find_rates(x, rates):
    for low, high, fix, rate in rates:
        if low <= x <= high:
            return low, high, fix, rate

gross = categories['GROSS']
result = 0
if gross:
    isr_table = payslip._rule_parameter('l10n_mx_isr_tables')[version.schedule_pay]
    low, high, fix, rate = find_rates(gross, isr_table)
    result = -((gross - low) * rate + fix)

period_factor = payslip._rule_parameter('l10n_mx_schedule_table')[version.schedule_pay]
if period_factor >= 15:
    period_factor = (period_factor / 30) * (365 / 12)
min_wage = payslip._rule_parameter('l10n_mx_daily_min_wage') * period_factor

if gross <= min_wage:
    result_qty = 0.0
"
```

Problem:
The IMSS incapacity amount is being deducted twice:
1. During "Worked Days" calculation, the IMSS incapacity is already not considered because the work entries belong to the "Unpaid Work Entry Types" of "Mexico: Regular Pay" structure.
2. During "Salary Computation", the `IMSS_DISABLE` salary rule deducts another time because it is in the `TAXABLE_ALW` category, and this one is deducted in the `NET` rule.

When the incapacity covers more than half of the period (e.g., 20 days in a monthly schedule), the double deduction causes the NET to become negative. This prevents the ISR rule from finding a correct stage in the tax tables, leading to a traceback.

Example: For a monthly wage of 30,000.0 and 5 incapacity days:
- The total amount in "Worked Days" is 25,000.0 (incapacities already deducted).
- The IMSS_DISABLE rule calculates -5,000.0, and when the NET rule is calculated, the incapacities are deducted again. Total NET becomes 16,843.84 instead of the expected 20,834.85.

Solution:
Change the rule category to `INTERMEDIARY_COMPUTATION` and avoid the double deduction when the `NET` is calculated, as it is already considered in the "Worked Days".

### Absenteeism and Disabilities
By law, the calculation of IMSS contributions depends on these two types of unpaid days:
* Disabilities: Refers to medical leave issued by the Institute (IMSS).
* Absenteeism: Refers to unjustified leave; apply for periods of fewer than 8 days.

Source: [Artículo 31](https://www.imss.gob.mx/sites/all/statics/pdf/leyes/LSS.pdf)
Translated text:
> Article 31. When wages are not paid due to the employee's absence from work, but the employment relationship persists, the monthly contribution shall be adjusted according to the following rules:
> I. If the employee's absences are for periods of fewer than eight consecutive or non-consecutive days, contributions shall be calculated and paid for such periods only for the sickness and maternity insurance...
If the employee's absences are for periods of eight consecutive days or more, the employer shall be released from the payment of employer-employee contributions...
> IV. In the case of absences covered by medical disabilities issued by the Institute, it shall not be mandatory to cover the employer-employee contributions, except regarding the retirement branch.

The following table summarizes the contribution requirements based on the type of absence:
Insurance Branch                  | Section I (Absenteeism) | Section IV (Disability)
--------------------------------|-------------------------|------------------------
Sickness and Maternity          | Paid                    | Not Paid
Disability and Life             | Not Paid                | Not Paid
Severance and Old Age           | Not Paid                | Not Paid
Work Risk                       | Not Paid                | Not Paid
Daycare and Social Benefits     | Not Paid                | Not Paid
INFONAVIT                       | Not Paid                | Paid
Retirement                      | Not Paid                | Paid

The type of unpaid day to be considered depends on the specific insurance branch being calculated within the employer-employee contributions.

Incorrect values in the XML
The signing process completes without errors, but some amounts in the generated XML are incorrect.

Problem:
The introduction of the Deduction 006 (Disability) directly impacts the calculation of the SubTotal and Total attributes in the Comprobante node.
For a monthly payslip with a wage of 30,000.00 (daily salary of 1,000.00) and 5 disability days (work risk), the values are calculated incorrectly as follows:
Attribute            | Calculation                      | Actual Value | Correct Value
---------------------|----------------------------------|--------------|--------------
Comprobante:SubTotal | Sum of Perceptions (P01)         | 25000.00     | 30000.00 (1)
Comprobante:Total    | SubTotal - Total Deductions (2)  | 15803.74     | 20803.74

(1) Must include the 5,000.00 from disabilities to balance the deduction.
(2) Total Deductions = D06 (5,000.00) + ISR (3,451.65) + IMSS (744.61) = 9,196.26.

The Total is currently undercalculated because the 5,000.00 is being deducted from the SubTotal that already had those 5,000.00 excluded.

Solution:
Since the `SubTotal` is derived from Perceptions, and the "(P01) Salaries, Wages, Stripes, and Day Labor" amount is driven by the `GROSS_WITHOUT_HOLIDAY` rule, the disability amount must be added. This balances the Deduction 006, ensuring `SubTotal` is correct.

* Add test for CFDI with incapacities.

target: 19.0
task-6066160