__
## Short functional explanation of the error
When an employee has multiple overtimes for the same day, including one that doesn't have a check-out date. When running the scheduled action `Attendance: Automatically check-out employees`, an error occurs: `odoo.exceptions.ValidationError: Duration must be positive and cannot exceed 24 hours.`

## Reproduction Steps
1. Create an employee. Set their timezone to UTC and the Overtime Ruleset to Default Ruleset in the settings tab.
In the Payroll tab, set a contract start date.
2. Set their Working Hours to a fixed 40 hours/week. Set the timezone of the Working Schedule to UTC.
3. Go to attendances and create 2 attendances on a Sunday: one from 06:00 to 06:01 and a second that starts at 06:02 but that doesn't have a checkout date.
4. Go to Settings and enable Automatic Checkout. Leave the Tolerance to 2 hours.
5. Enable debug mode and go to Scheduled Actions. Look for `Attendance: Automatically check-out employees` and run it manually.

### Expected behavior
As the tolerance is 2 hours, the second attendance check-out time should be set at 08:01.

### Unexpected behavior
An error occurs:
`odoo.exceptions.ValidationError: Duration must be positive and cannot exceed 24 hours.`

## Origin of the issue
We retrieve overtime intervals with the domain:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/64f813dab727d76286c1ff6c80c08cb6a6737b49/hr_work_entry_attendance/models/hr_version.py#L34-L42 This will make us retrieve all the overtimes for a given day, even if overtimes belong to different attendances.

However, this means that we will retrieve several times the same overtimes, as this piece of code is executed in this context:

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/64f813dab727d76286c1ff6c80c08cb6a6737b49/hr_work_entry_attendance/models/hr_attendance.py#L35 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/64f813dab727d76286c1ff6c80c08cb6a6737b49/hr_work_entry_attendance/models/hr_attendance.py#L43

This results in the generation of intervals containing multiple times the same overtimes. We then sum their duration to later create work entries:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/64f813dab727d76286c1ff6c80c08cb6a6737b49/hr_work_entry_attendance/models/hr_attendance.py#L47 As we try to create a work entry with too much overtime, that exceeds 24 hours, it raises a validation error.
Moreover, as the overtime hours are always stored in UTC, it makes sense to always keep the timezone as UTC when performing a `_read_group` .
__
opw-6036064

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#116194

**Issue:**
In the navbar view, when a user starts in mobile view (narrow width) and then increases the screen width (e.g., by zooming out or resizing), the menu items and app icon do not reappear. The navbar remains stuck in mobile mode even when there is enough space to display the full layout.

**Fix:**
The navbar was relying on `env.isSmall`, which is only set during initialization and does not react to window resizing. This has been updated to use `this.ui.isSmall`, which is reactive and updates dynamically when the viewport size changes.

**Before:**
After resizing from mobile to a larger width, the navbar continued to behave as if it were still in mobile view, keeping menu items and the app icon hidden.

**After:**
When the screen width increases, the navbar correctly detects the change and re-renders, restoring the menu items and app icon as expected.

opw-6107660

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263675
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263039

**Steps to Reproduce:**

1. Click on configure on one of the job positions having a recruiter assigned.
2. Remove the recruiter from the form
3. Now try to go to Settings App > Manage Users. (You will stuck with an error) 
4. Navigate to users using the menu, and open Mitchell Admin → He is no longer an employee.

**Bug Cause:**
In HrJob.write(), when recruiter_id changes, the code attempts to update ongoing applications' recruiter by writing:
    application_ids.recruiter_id.user_id = job.recruiter_id.user_id

This traverses the relational chain and writes user_id directly on the existing recruiter employee record instead of reassigning the recruiter on the applications. When recruiter_id is cleared, job.recruiter_id.user_id resolves to False, effectively setting user_id = False on the previous recruiter's hr.employee record, breaking the link between the employee and their user account.

**Bug Solution:**
Directly reassign recruiter_id on the ongoing applications instead of mutating the employee's user_id: application_ids.recruiter_id = job.recruiter_id

**Task:** 6102209
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#257836

**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)

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#115976

# Setup
For easiness of testing : have no purchase order in your dashboard

# How to reproduce
- Create a Purchase Order for Vendor X and with Product Y
- Click on Confirm Order -> Receive -> Validate
- Go back to the dashboard

# The problem
The displayed OTD is 0%, but when you go to the Vendor X form view and check his On-time Rate, it is 100%

# Cause
The computation for the On-time rate in the dashboard uses the whole datetime value, so if there is even a second of difference between `effective_date` and `date_planned`, the PO is not counted as on-time :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/942cbbbf243ff28f84fdaa40ed73b6572e0032a6/addons/purchase_stock/models/purchase_order.py#L253

That is not the case for the partner On-time rate computation, where we round the datetime value to the date value : https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/942cbbbf243ff28f84fdaa40ed73b6572e0032a6/addons/purchase_stock/models/res_partner.py#L57

opw-6128510

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263341
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#260384

Currently when the user produces a product, the system shows warnings for components that don't apply to that variant.

## Steps to replicate:
- Install Manufacturing
- Enable Variants from settings
- Create a Product 'Car' with color attribute value: Red and Blue
- Create Bill of material for car:
   - Components: Engine, Radiator
- For the 'Engine' component set color: Blue on 'Apply on Variants' field on
  bom lines (unhide the field as it is hidden by default).
- Create and confirm an MO for Red Car
- Produce All

## Observed Behavior:
A consumption warning is being triggered indicating that the radiator has not been consumed, even though this component is intended only for the blue car variant and not the red car.

## Root cause:
When the Produce All button is pressed, it calls the `button_mark_done` function, which in turn invokes `pre_button_mark_done` as shown in [1]. This eventually leads to the execution of `_get_consumption_issues` as shown at [2].

The issue arises in the loop at [3], where BoM lines are checked for missing components. The filtering logic used to populate the `all_lines` variable incorrectly includes BoM lines that belong to other variants. Specifically, it does not take into account the "Apply on Variants" field, causing lines meant for different variants to be considered.

As a result, these irrelevant lines are treated as missing components and are added to the `missing_lines`, which is then included in the issues list at [4].

**Why this did not occur in versions prior to 19.2?:**
This behavior was introduced unintentionally after [commit](
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/7a406f26c3c846b347498a3cb60b4ac12df53c6e), which revamped the warning wizard to support showing warning without a BoM.

Previously, the expected component values were derived solely from `_get_moves_raw_values`. However, after the change, the logic also considers BoM lines directly. This change led to the inclusion of variant-specific lines without properly filtering them based on the `"Apply on Variants"` field, resulting in the observed issue.
[1]:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/4f04f26886393843cfdcec97ed1248a8cf0d1957/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L2214-L2227 [2]:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/4f04f26886393843cfdcec97ed1248a8cf0d1957/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L2348-L2366 [3]:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5b907e1235e37b2e6f90ac3289d1947f1abd57df/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L1763-L1781 [4]:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5b907e1235e37b2e6f90ac3289d1947f1abd57df/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L1811-L1813 

## Solution:
To prevent confusion, users should not see warnings for component lines that are not applicable to the current product variant.

This can be achieved by refining the filtering logic to exclude irrelevant BoM lines, using the `_skip_bom_line` which ensures that only BoM lines valid for the current product variant are considered.

By tightening this condition, variant-specific components that do not apply to the selected variant will be ignored, thereby avoiding incorrect consumption warnings.


opw-6086167

## Short functional explanation of the error
When accessing a public department from a multicompany setting, an access error is triggered.

## Reproduction Steps
1. Create another company.
2. Go to Employees and create an employee.
3. Go to Departments and create a Department. Set the manager of the department to the employee you just created. Make sure that this department doesn't have a company assigned.
4. Select the company you just created, and unselect the previous one.

### Expected behavior
The public department should appear in the list.

### Unexpected behavior
An error occurs:

```Uh-oh! Looks like you have stumbled upon some top-secret records.

 Sorry, Mitchell Admin (id=2) doesn't have 'read' access to:
 - Employee (hr.employee)
 ```

## Origin of the issue
In the case where we want to access departments but managers
are employees only defined in one specific company, which isn't
the current company, the access is denied as we try to access
such employees. However, we should be able to access their
departments as they're publicly visible.
Therefore, in the code, we need to check if the employee
we want to access is a manager from a department that is 
accessible.

__
opw-6113535

Currently, error occurs when user tries to merge a mailing list.

Steps to replicate:
- Install `mass_mailing`.
- Open Email Marketing > Mailing Lists > Mailing Lists and switch to list view.
- Select a single record and Click merge.

Error:
```
psycopg2.errors.SyntaxError: syntax error at or near ")"
LINE 8:           AND src_sub.list_id IN ()
                                         ^

ValueError: SyntaxError('syntax error at or near ")"\nLINE 8: 'AND src_sub.list_id IN ()\n'
^\n') while evaluating 'action = records.action_mailing_lists_merge()'
```

Cause:
- Error occurs due to a recent [PR].

- When the user selects only a single record, `self - dest` [1] evaluates to an empty recordset. As a result, `action_merge()` receives an empty `src_lists`.

- Later, this is used [here] and converted into an empty tuple, producing an invalid SQL clause like `src_sub.list_id IN ()`, which leads to this error.

Solution:
- When `src_lists` is an empty recordset, we early return from `action_merge()`.

[PR]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/72156

[1]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/4193b3735d64518290613f5c8132f1fd07afa229/addons/mass_mailing/models/mailing_list.py#L218

[here]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/4193b3735d64518290613f5c8132f1fd07afa229/addons/mass_mailing/models/mailing_list.py#L266

sentry-7447326420

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

__
## Short functional explanation of the error
When an employee has multiple overtimes for the same day, including one that doesn't have a check-out date. When running the scheduled action `Attendance: Automatically check-out employees`, an error occurs: `odoo.exceptions.ValidationError: Duration must be positive and cannot exceed 24 hours.`

## Reproduction Steps
1. Create an employee. Set their timezone to UTC and the Overtime Ruleset to Default Ruleset in the settings tab.
In the Payroll tab, set a contract start date.
2. Set their Working Hours to a fixed 40 hours/week. Set the timezone of the Working Schedule to UTC.
3. Go to attendances and create 2 attendances on a Sunday: one from 06:00 to 06:01 and a second that starts at 06:02 but that doesn't have a checkout date.
4. Go to Settings and enable Automatic Checkout. Leave the Tolerance to 2 hours.
5. Enable debug mode and go to Scheduled Actions. Look for `Attendance: Automatically check-out employees` and run it manually.

### Expected behavior
As the tolerance is 2 hours, the second attendance check-out time should be set at 08:01.

### Unexpected behavior
An error occurs:
`odoo.exceptions.ValidationError: Duration must be positive and cannot exceed 24 hours.`

## Origin of the issue
We retrieve overtime intervals with the domain:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/64f813dab727d76286c1ff6c80c08cb6a6737b49/hr_work_entry_attendance/models/hr_version.py#L34-L42 This will make us retrieve all the overtimes for a given day, even if overtimes belong to different attendances.

However, this means that we will retrieve several times the same overtimes, as this piece of code is executed in this context:

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/64f813dab727d76286c1ff6c80c08cb6a6737b49/hr_work_entry_attendance/models/hr_attendance.py#L35 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/64f813dab727d76286c1ff6c80c08cb6a6737b49/hr_work_entry_attendance/models/hr_attendance.py#L43

This results in the generation of intervals containing multiple times the same overtimes. We then sum their duration to later create work entries:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/64f813dab727d76286c1ff6c80c08cb6a6737b49/hr_work_entry_attendance/models/hr_attendance.py#L47 As we try to create a work entry with too much overtime, that exceeds 24 hours, it raises a validation error.
Moreover, as the overtime hours are always stored in UTC, it makes sense to always keep the timezone as UTC when performing a `_read_group` .
__
opw-6036064

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#116194

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#116415
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#108315

**Problem:**
On a Belgian company with the UI set to French (or any non English language), the gross line never appears in the salary configurator sidebar when opening an offer.

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Create a Belgian company.
2. Install French and set the admin user to French.
3. Go to an applicant (e.g Laurie Poiret), create a salary offer, save.
4. Open the offer link (salary configurator).

**Cause:**
The base `_get_compute_results` uses the translated `category_id.name` ("Salaire mensuel" in french) as the dictionary key when writing entries into `resume_lines_mapped`. The payroll override function `_get_period_name`, which for monthly schedules returned the hard coded english string `"Monthly Salary"` instead of the translated category name. This caused a key mismatch: the gross line was stored under the translated key, while the override rebuilt `resume_categories` with the english key so when the template iterates over categories and looks up `lines[category]`, the whole "Monthly Salary" bucket was invisible in every non english language.

**Solution:**
We should now return the `category_id.name` directly (the translated name coming from the record itself). This keeps all keys consistent between `resume_categories` and `resume_lines_mapped` regardless of the language used.

also because in https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/1845042ff388593c4cdf547d47c018f42bd02c7c/l10n_be_hr_contract_salary/controllers/main.py#L450
We use `resume = result['resume_lines_mapped']['Monthly Salary']`
We need to re-design this by using the actual translated names, and building `result` keys based on the language selected (the same should be applied for "Yearly benefits").

opw-6009711

---

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#116657
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#110676

**Problem:**
On a Belgian company with the UI set to French (or any non English language), the gross line never appears in the salary configurator sidebar when opening an offer.

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Create a Belgian company.
2. Install French and set the admin user to French.
3. Go to an applicant (e.g Laurie Poiret), create a salary offer, save.
4. Open the offer link (salary configurator).

**Cause:**
The base `_get_compute_results` uses the translated `category_id.name` ("Salaire mensuel" in french) as the dictionary key when writing entries into `resume_lines_mapped`. The payroll override function `_get_period_name`, which for monthly schedules returned the hard coded english string `"Monthly Salary"` instead of the translated category name. This caused a key mismatch: the gross line was stored under the translated key, while the override rebuilt `resume_categories` with the english key so when the template iterates over categories and looks up `lines[category]`, the whole "Monthly Salary" bucket was invisible in every non english language.

**Solution:**
We should now return the `category_id.name` directly (the translated name coming from the record itself). This keeps all keys consistent between `resume_categories` and `resume_lines_mapped` regardless of the language used.

also because in https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/1845042ff388593c4cdf547d47c018f42bd02c7c/l10n_be_hr_contract_salary/controllers/main.py#L450
We use `resume = result['resume_lines_mapped']['Monthly Salary']`
We need to re-design this by using the actual translated names, and building `result` keys based on the language selected (the same should be applied for "Yearly benefits").

opw-6009711

---

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#110676

Issue:
----------------------------------------
When having an employee with `l10n_us_filing_status` not in `['single', 'jointly']` and evaluating the rule parameter `l10n_us_qualified_overtime_deduction_cap` an error occurs.

Cause:
----------------------------------------
`l10n_us_filing_status` can have 5 values: `['single', 'jointly', 'separately', 'head', 'survivor']` But only `['single', 'jointly']` are defined for `l10n_us_qualified_overtime_deduction_cap` ([src](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/2d2056766441157dc45ebc37b677841c44e5c513/l10n_us_hr_payroll/data/hr_rule_parameters_data.xml#L48)).

When running the rule "Qualified Overtime", the custom Python crashes because we read a key that is not there:

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/2d2056766441157dc45ebc37b677841c44e5c513/l10n_us_hr_payroll/data/hr_salary_rule_data.xml#L56

Solution:
----------------------------------------
In the custom Python condition, we first check if the key is there.

The custom Python computation also tries to read the key, but it is run only if the condition is validated. So we don't need to change it.

Also fixed indentation of test 069.

opw-6129657

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#115754

Issue:
----------------------------------------
In the Planning Gantt view when we don't group by resources, the total row is not considering the working hours.

Steps to reproduce:
----------------------------------------
- Open Planning
- Remove the default group by resources
- Have at least a planning slot for a non-flexible employee
- The total row doesn't take the working schedule into account

Cause:
----------------------------------------
Since [an improvement,](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/cc35e1a4729453e4f788034a94402ab048eadfcb) the working hours data in given to the `PlanningGanttRenderer` through the progress bars data. This is an issue because the progress bars are only there if we group by resources. ([src](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/423ab064847dd41d36778a812390e3bec53ba4dc/planning/models/planning_slot.py#L2669-L2678))

Solution:
----------------------------------------
In this commit we partially revert the commit adding the working intervals in the progress bars. Instead of doing it in `_gantt_progress_bar_resource_id()` we create a new method `_get_gantt_planning_data()` which is called directly in `get_gantt_data()` and returns useful information even when there are no progress bars.

opw-5507063

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#112522

__
## Short functional explanation of the error
When an employee has multiple overtimes for the same day, including one that doesn't have a check-out date. When running the scheduled action `Attendance: Automatically check-out employees`, an error occurs: `odoo.exceptions.ValidationError: Duration must be positive and cannot exceed 24 hours.`

## Reproduction Steps
1. Create an employee. Set their timezone to UTC and the Overtime Ruleset to Default Ruleset in the settings tab.
In the Payroll tab, set a contract start date.
2. Set their Working Hours to a fixed 40 hours/week. Set the timezone of the Working Schedule to UTC.
3. Go to attendances and create 2 attendances on a Sunday: one from 06:00 to 06:01 and a second that starts at 06:02 but that doesn't have a checkout date.
4. Go to Settings and enable Automatic Checkout. Leave the Tolerance to 2 hours.
5. Enable debug mode and go to Scheduled Actions. Look for `Attendance: Automatically check-out employees` and run it manually.

### Expected behavior
As the tolerance is 2 hours, the second attendance check-out time should be set at 08:01.

### Unexpected behavior
An error occurs:
`odoo.exceptions.ValidationError: Duration must be positive and cannot exceed 24 hours.`

## Origin of the issue
We retrieve overtime intervals with the domain:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/64f813dab727d76286c1ff6c80c08cb6a6737b49/hr_work_entry_attendance/models/hr_version.py#L34-L42 This will make us retrieve all the overtimes for a given day, even if overtimes belong to different attendances.

However, this means that we will retrieve several times the same overtimes, as this piece of code is executed in this context:

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/64f813dab727d76286c1ff6c80c08cb6a6737b49/hr_work_entry_attendance/models/hr_attendance.py#L35 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/64f813dab727d76286c1ff6c80c08cb6a6737b49/hr_work_entry_attendance/models/hr_attendance.py#L43

This results in the generation of intervals containing multiple times the same overtimes. We then sum their duration to later create work entries:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/64f813dab727d76286c1ff6c80c08cb6a6737b49/hr_work_entry_attendance/models/hr_attendance.py#L47 As we try to create a work entry with too much overtime, that exceeds 24 hours, it raises a validation error.
Moreover, as the overtime hours are always stored in UTC, it makes sense to always keep the timezone as UTC when performing a `_read_group` .
__
opw-6036064

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#116194

Before this commit, when right-clicking on a link in a message of type email, this shows the message actions rather than the browser context menu.

We expect to display the browser context menu, as there are many handful feature of browser context menu for links. This was handled in earlier fixes [1][2], but these fixes were not working with messages of type email.

This didn't work because messages of type email are inside a shadow DOM, so `ev.target` is necessarily the shadow root and not the specific targeted element. This commit fixes the issue by using `ev.composedPath()` to pick the 1st element, so that this exposes the inner-most element inside the shadow DOM that has been right-clicked. This lets us ignore the showing of message actions in right-click when this comes from a link.

opw-6110949

[1]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/244252
[2]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/258681

Before / After

<img width="441" height="243" alt="before" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/f274e8d2-66af-442e-9a31-27ea1ce4d9bd" />
<img width="605" height="513" alt="after" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/3e241e83-93d0-47e6-970c-b5e5f339417d" />

# Setup
Have 2 companies : A & B

# How to reproduce
- Set your website's company to Company B
- Create product X :
	- Company : Company A
	- Published
	- Name : xyz
- Go to Users > Any User > Acces Rights > Allowed Companies => leave only Company A
- Connect as that user on the website
- Go to the Shop tab and search xyz

# The problem
The product X is displayed, even though we currently use the company B's website and the product is limited to company A. 
This causes problem later when Sales Order are created using that product.

If you set the Allowed Companies of the user to both Company A and Company B, then the product is correctly hidden

# Why
When you search something in the search bar, the server does a `_search_with_fuzzy()` that ends up calling a simple `model.search()`.
In our case, this search should not return product X because there is an `ir.rule` that hides product not in the current company :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0bb5ac6c1a87367c1ebb343ad6e6e6e56188cf13/addons/product/security/product_security.xml#L34-L38

But the `website` module has some particular rule about setting the current company :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0bb5ac6c1a87367c1ebb343ad6e6e6e56188cf13/addons/website/models/ir_http.py#L249-L261

So, in our case, since the user does not have company B in its allowed companies, then
`allowed_company_ids` = Company A. So `('company_id', 'parent_of', company_ids)` is trucy and the product is displayed

# Proposed solution
Doing the search with `with_company` raise an AccessError because the company is not present in the allowed_companies. Chaging the allowed companies logic seems risky because it
may lead to unintended side effects.

We instead enforce the website's company in the search's domain

opw-6115647

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262366
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#260138

FIX] purchase_stock: handle missing seller during PO line update (min_qty)
**Steps to Reproduce:**

- Install Sale, Inventory, Manufacturing, and Purchase.
- Enable MTO, Units of Measure, and Routes.
- Create a product:
      Set a vendor price with min_qty = 1.0.
      Enable MTO route.
     Add a BoM with a component product.
    Set quantity to 0.1 (less than vendor min_qty).
- Create a Sale Order with the same product added twice.
- Confirm the Sale Order.

**Issue:**
During procurement:

- First procurement correctly fetches the supplier.
- On PO line update (_update_purchase_order_line), seller is recomputed.
  Due to min_qty filtering, no seller is returned when quantity is low.
  This results in: Missing seller, Missing product_uom, Invalid price
  computation, And finally causes a crash when confirming the Purchase Order,
  in _get_stock_move_price_unit: ZeroDivisionErroR

Root Cause:

- _select_seller filters suppliers using min_qty.
 During merge/update flow, recomputed quantity may not satisfy min_qty.
 Existing valid supplier (from initial procurement) is ignored.
 No fallback handling in _update_purchase_order_line.

**Solution:**

- Add fallback logic when _select_seller returns no result: Use
  _prepare_sellers() to fetch a valid supplier ignoring min_qty.
- Ensure a supplier is always available for: UoM resolution, Price computation
   Prevents crash and ensures consistent PO line updates.

**Result:**

- No traceback when quantity < vendor min_qty
  Supplier, UoM, and price are properly set

**OPW-6106487**

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#259894

Steps to reproduce
1. Go to Accounting → Configuration → Analytic Distribution Models
2. Create a new model, name it, and in the distribution column pick an analytic account
3. Click outside the row and reload the page

Issue
The newly created record vanishes because `web_save` received
`analytic_distribution: false`. The single click that closes the popover
also triggers the editable list's `leaveEditMode`, which calls
`record.save()`. That save runs before the widget has flushed the user's
pick into `record.data`, so the write goes out with stale/empty data.

This became reliably reproducible after [37d78a47bb20],
which moved the list renderer's outside-click listener from `document`
(bubble) to `window` (capture). Because the list is mounted before the
widget, its capture-phase listener now fires first: `leaveEditMode` →
`record.save()` is already in flight by the time the widget's own
window click handler runs, so the widget's commit loses the race.

Solution
`record.save()` awaits `_askChanges()` before writing:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/cdf8aaec82ee387c8f29b8327efbc95fd17e2cb8/addons/web/static/src/model/relational_model/record.js#L268-L271
`_askChanges()` triggers `NEED_LOCAL_CHANGES` on the model bus and
awaits any proms handlers push onto it:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/cdf8aaec82ee387c8f29b8327efbc95fd17e2cb8/addons/web/static/src/model/relational_model/relational_model.js#L249-L253
This is the framework's standard hook for widgets that hold uncommitted
local state; `ace_field` and `domain_field` already use it.

Subscribe the analytic distribution widget to the same event and, when
the dropdown is open, push a `commitChanges()` prom that awaits the
existing `save()`. Because `record.save()` awaits these proms before
running `_save`, the widget's pending distribution is guaranteed to be
on `record.data` by the time the write payload is built, regardless of
click-listener ordering.

opw-6106309

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#116187
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#115451

Steps to reproduce
------------------
1. Create a sale order with 2 products, confirm it
2. Cancel the SO, then click "Set to Quotation"
3. Open PoS, settle the order and pay
4. Check the delivery order linked to the PoS order

The delivery is empty, yet the products still show as "delivered" on
the sale order.

Why it's happening
------------------
When the SO is cancelled, its moves go to 'cancel' state. After
resetting to quotation, those moves stay cancelled. When PoS creates
the delivery, the filter in `_create_move_from_pos_order_lines` checks
`has_valued_move_ids()` which returns False (all moves are cancelled),
and `not move_ids` is also False (cancelled moves still exist). So the
lines coming from the SO are excluded from the delivery.

The fix
-------
We now also create deliveries for lines whose SO moves are all
cancelled. These are lines coming from a cancelled SO that now need
to be shipped after we have settled their order from PoS.

Note
----
The commit c0f338711f028088c98ea459f27c1669b29738d7 fixes this starting from saas-18.2, by introducing a separate `pos_repair` module which simplifies the main `pos_sale` code. In 18.2+, only the test will be forward ported.

opw-6055856

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263369
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#256693

When applying the 'Waiting for me' filter in the Sign app, all documents are fetched instead of filtering out documents that do not need the current user's signature.

Steps to reproduce:
1) Install sign with demo data
2) Open sign app and remove default filter
3) Add a filter Waiting for me

Observed Behavior:
All the documents are fetched.

Expected Behavior:
Documents should be filtered out to only show those where the current user is a signer.

Root Cause:
Since [commit](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/76079/changes/8b5048f63f91a38a710b611d17f5cf27fbd0a18a), The `_search_need_my_signature` method returned `NotImplemented` for any operator other than `in` at [1]. While the filter uses `=` at [2]. Following a recent ORM optimization with the mentioned commit, the operators are now standardized as shown

From:
`('need_my_signature', '=', True)]`

To:
`[('need_my_signature', 'in', [True])]`

This means the search method now receives the expected `in` operator. However, the return logic uses a `not in` condition when filtering documents waiting for signature.

As a result, instead of filtering documents, all documents are returned.

[1]- https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/012b42c20b48e8e36298875e3291936e68e72375/sign/models/sign_request.py#L107-L108

[2]- https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/012b42c20b48e8e36298875e3291936e68e72375/sign/views/sign_request_views.xml#L177

Fix:
Corrected the return domain logic to fetch the correct documents.

opw-6026935

Currently, the field `l10n_co_edi_ubl` is displayed without a label 
in the UoM form, confusing users.

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install the `l10n_co_edi` module and switch to the CO Company.
- Navigate to Invoicing > Settings.
- Enable `Units of Measure & Packagings`.
- Open `Units & Packagings` and click `New`.

**Observation:**
The `l10n_co_edi_ubl` field appears between the `Quantity` label and 
its corresponding field, but its own label is not visible.

<img width="1905" height="324" alt="6180769_before" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/f35c345a-f449-46e4-ad15-6981109fca7a" />


**Root Cause:**
The inherited view [1] inserts the field `l10n_co_edi_ubl` before 
`relative_factor` in the base view [2].

In the base view, `relative_factor` is wrapped inside a `<div>` with a 
shared label (`Quantity`). Since the new field is inserted inside this 
structure, it inherits the same layout without having its own label, 
resulting in the label being hidden.

**Fix:**
This commit updates the view to ensure that the field `l10n_co_edi_ubl` 
is properly displayed with its own label, avoiding UI confusion and 
improving form clarity.

**After:**
<img width="1907" height="376" alt="6180769_after" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/f96470d3-8df2-4ca4-acf8-f6511a49d725" />

[1]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/7b0d07bce92fb4b2cb588344fb0f6e3dd5d94f4a/l10n_co_edi/views/product_uom_views.xml#L4-L13

[2]:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/bae4fa4e0dde2d2e2e4fcdbb968f630c080af818/addons/uom/views/uom_uom_views.xml#L15-L34

opw-6180769

__

## Short functional explanation of the error
When we have a subscription product that has already been sold. If we try to import a product with the same ID but where we change the subscription type of the product, the import is executed without issue. However, this leads to undesired behavior:
when we go to the product page and try to manually change the subscription type (set it back to subscription), the change is not applied as a warning is raised.

## Reproduction Steps
Make sure you have debug mode enabled.
1. Create a product, and check the Subscription box.
2. Click on Orders and create a Quotation with this product, then confirm.
3. Go to Products > Products. Select the list view and search for the product you just created. Select it, and click Actions > Export.
4. Check the import compatible field. Select the fields to export: name, id and recurring_invoice. Upon exporting, a file is downloaded.
5. Access that file and change the recurring_invoice to FAUX or FALSE if your computer is in English. Save the changes.
6. Unselect the product and click on the cog, top right > Import. Click on Upload Data File and select the file that you have downloaded upon exporting, then import.

### Expected behavior
A user warning is raised: we shouldn't be able to change the subscription type of the product when it has already been sold.

### Unexpected behavior
The import is processed normally. Then, when we access the product page, and try to check the Subscriptions box again, a warning is raised.

## Origin of the issue
Nothing prevents the import from occurring in that case.

__
opw-6143789

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#115046

Commit 28b840b introduced logic to include `freight_costs` in the customs document generated bySendcloud. It introduced 2 new issues as a result:

1. When creating backorders, the `freight_costs` are not divided but instead propagated to all of the pickings.
2. When there is no SO, we were taking the total value of all delivered goods, which doesn't make much sense considering the `freight_costs` field should be the cost of the delivery itself.

Solution
-----
For the first problem, there are a couple things to keep in mind:
- the total `freight_costs` declared to the customs entity should be the amount invoiced to the customer
- products can be added and removed from the picking after the SO has been confirmed
- actual delivery cost can change between invoice date and actual delivery date
- picking can be split into multiple packages at the user's discretion

Considering all of the above, we will simply forward the invoiced amount with the first confirmed picking and none of the backorders.

-----
Ticket:
opw-6013387

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#111304

Before commit:
The Norwegian VAT XML export fails Skatteetaten validation due to incorrect
decimal formatting, mathematical rounding mismatches between base and tax
amounts, missing mandatory legal notes, and invalid KID number formats.

Fix:
To strictly follow Skatteetaten validation rules for the Norway VAT XML, the
following changes were implemented:
- Ensured standard rates drop the decimal (e.g, `25.0` to `25`), and formatted 
  fractional rates like `11.11` to `11,11` in XML.
- Rounded down the `tax_amount` to align precisely with government mathematical
  expectations.
- `base_amount` converted into absolute value to ensuring the calculation
  (`base * rate = tax`) resolves perfectly.
- Add the mandatory `<merknad>` explaining the reverse charge method for codes
  81, 83, 86, 88, and 91.
- Clean the `company_kid` by safely stripping the 'NO' prefix, and 'MVA' suffix.

Expect:
The generated XML payload now adheres perfectly to Skatteetaten's strict
structural and mathematical rules, allowing the VAT return to pass government
validations successfully.

Related Community PR: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/258390

Task-6033027

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#116553
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#110792

### Steps to Reproduce:
- Enable dropshipping in Inventory settings
- Create a product with inventory tracking enabled
- Enable dropship under the Inventory tab for the product
- Add a vendor and quantity under the Purchase tab
- Create a sale order for the product
- Go to the Purchase stat button and confirm the order
- Click on the Dropship stat button and validate the transfer
- Open Helpdesk and create a new ticket for the same partner

### Issue:
The "Returns" stat button is not visible for dropshipped deliveries.

### Current behaviour:
- The helpdesk ticket allows returns of customer orders only if the order is outgoing. However, this does not cover the usecase where the order was dropshipped and still needs to be returned to the vendor.
- With the current behavior, the user needs to find the customer's order to return the transfer as it is not possible to do from the ticket.

### Expected behaviour:
Helpdesk tickets should also allow returns of dropshipped transfers (done and linked to the SO).

### Fix:
The helpdesk return logic was limited to only 'outgoing' pickings. This commit extends the 'return' button should be visible if there is at least one delivery or dropship order linked to the partner of the ticket

Issue:https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/81378

task-4881338

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#91402

__
## Short functional explanation of the error
When an employee has multiple overtimes for the same day, including one that doesn't have a check-out date. When running the scheduled action `Attendance: Automatically check-out employees`, an error occurs: `odoo.exceptions.ValidationError: Duration must be positive and cannot exceed 24 hours.`

## Reproduction Steps
1. Create an employee. Set their timezone to UTC and the Overtime Ruleset to Default Ruleset in the settings tab.
In the Payroll tab, set a contract start date.
2. Set their Working Hours to a fixed 40 hours/week. Set the timezone of the Working Schedule to UTC.
3. Go to attendances and create 2 attendances on a Sunday: one from 06:00 to 06:01 and a second that starts at 06:02 but that doesn't have a checkout date.
4. Go to Settings and enable Automatic Checkout. Leave the Tolerance to 2 hours.
5. Enable debug mode and go to Scheduled Actions. Look for `Attendance: Automatically check-out employees` and run it manually.

### Expected behavior
As the tolerance is 2 hours, the second attendance check-out time should be set at 08:01.

### Unexpected behavior
An error occurs:
`odoo.exceptions.ValidationError: Duration must be positive and cannot exceed 24 hours.`

## Origin of the issue
We retrieve overtime intervals with the domain:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/64f813dab727d76286c1ff6c80c08cb6a6737b49/hr_work_entry_attendance/models/hr_version.py#L34-L42 This will make us retrieve all the overtimes for a given day, even if overtimes belong to different attendances.

However, this means that we will retrieve several times the same overtimes, as this piece of code is executed in this context:

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/64f813dab727d76286c1ff6c80c08cb6a6737b49/hr_work_entry_attendance/models/hr_attendance.py#L35 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/64f813dab727d76286c1ff6c80c08cb6a6737b49/hr_work_entry_attendance/models/hr_attendance.py#L43

This results in the generation of intervals containing multiple times the same overtimes. We then sum their duration to later create work entries:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/64f813dab727d76286c1ff6c80c08cb6a6737b49/hr_work_entry_attendance/models/hr_attendance.py#L47 As we try to create a work entry with too much overtime, that exceeds 24 hours, it raises a validation error.
Moreover, as the overtime hours are always stored in UTC, it makes sense to always keep the timezone as UTC when performing a `_read_group` .
__
opw-6036064

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#116194

Issue
-----
When there are 2 lines for a single product and different packaging uoms, scanning a packaging barcode alternates between lines.

Steps to reproduce
-----
- Enable packagings
- Create a product AAA
	- barcode 1
- Create a packaging 6-Pack
	- 6 units
	- barcode for AAA set to 6
- Create a PO
	- one line for 30 units of AAA
	- one line for 5 6-Pack of AAA
- Confirm PO and open picking in barcode
- Scan "6" multiple times

> Quantity increases on both lines, alternating for each scan

Cause
-----
Both lines can be found as matching lines when doing

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/d279632db25713dd639a51385cad197dfdbd2bdc/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L1426

The reason it alternates between the lines is because we set the currently selected line first in the array - and since both lines match, the `foundLine` returned ends up being the non-selected line.

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/d279632db25713dd639a51385cad197dfdbd2bdc/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L1823-L1832

We can avoid this y refining the `break` condition of the loop to also match the packaging uom.

-----
Ticket:
opw-6034572

__
## Short functional explanation of the error
When an employee has multiple overtimes for the same day, including one that doesn't have a check-out date. When running the scheduled action `Attendance: Automatically check-out employees`, an error occurs: `odoo.exceptions.ValidationError: Duration must be positive and cannot exceed 24 hours.`

## Reproduction Steps
1. Create an employee. Set their timezone to UTC and the Overtime Ruleset to Default Ruleset in the settings tab.
In the Payroll tab, set a contract start date.
2. Set their Working Hours to a fixed 40 hours/week. Set the timezone of the Working Schedule to UTC.
3. Go to attendances and create 2 attendances on a Sunday: one from 06:00 to 06:01 and a second that starts at 06:02 but that doesn't have a checkout date.
4. Go to Settings and enable Automatic Checkout. Leave the Tolerance to 2 hours.
5. Enable debug mode and go to Scheduled Actions. Look for `Attendance: Automatically check-out employees` and run it manually.

### Expected behavior
As the tolerance is 2 hours, the second attendance check-out time should be set at 08:01.

### Unexpected behavior
An error occurs:
`odoo.exceptions.ValidationError: Duration must be positive and cannot exceed 24 hours.`

## Origin of the issue
We retrieve overtime intervals with the domain:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/64f813dab727d76286c1ff6c80c08cb6a6737b49/hr_work_entry_attendance/models/hr_version.py#L34-L42 This will make us retrieve all the overtimes for a given day, even if overtimes belong to different attendances.

However, this means that we will retrieve several times the same overtimes, as this piece of code is executed in this context:

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/64f813dab727d76286c1ff6c80c08cb6a6737b49/hr_work_entry_attendance/models/hr_attendance.py#L35 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/64f813dab727d76286c1ff6c80c08cb6a6737b49/hr_work_entry_attendance/models/hr_attendance.py#L43

This results in the generation of intervals containing multiple times the same overtimes. We then sum their duration to later create work entries:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/64f813dab727d76286c1ff6c80c08cb6a6737b49/hr_work_entry_attendance/models/hr_attendance.py#L47 As we try to create a work entry with too much overtime, that exceeds 24 hours, it raises a validation error.
Moreover, as the overtime hours are always stored in UTC, it makes sense to always keep the timezone as UTC when performing a `_read_group` .
__
opw-6036064

### Steps to reproduce:

- In the settings enable "Packages"
- Create a storable product A and put 1 unit in a package P in stock
- Inventory > Products > Packages > open your package P
- Set a parent package PP as container
- Inventory > Operations > Adjustments > Physical Inventory
- Select you product line for A > Request a count (from the control panel button)
- Enable Show Expected Quantity and confirm
- Go to the barcode app > Count Inventory (1)
- scan your parent package PP
#### > traceback: Uncaught Promise > Cannot create property 'inventory_quantity' on boolean 'false'

### Cause of the issue:

When the Package scan is processed, we loop over all quants related to it:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/30a28e28f8dd27cf2c88df65e5ff47eab59360c7/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_quant_model.js#L566-L569 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/30a28e28f8dd27cf2c88df65e5ff47eab59360c7/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_quant_model.js#L602-L617
And for each of these we try to find an existing line representing the quant to update or we do create a new line. Now, the issue, is that the subpackages of the quant are not provided to find the quant candidate line to update. As such, no line is found we enter the else clause and try to createa a NewLine:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/30a28e28f8dd27cf2c88df65e5ff47eab59360c7/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_quant_model.js#L617-L627 This time however, the appropriate subpackage (the one of the quant) is provided to the arguments. And, since the line representing this quant is already existing, the `_createNewLine` will return False: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/30a28e28f8dd27cf2c88df65e5ff47eab59360c7/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_quant_model.js#L393-L399 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/30a28e28f8dd27cf2c88df65e5ff47eab59360c7/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_quant_model.js#L423
This leads to a traceback at the end of the else close since `false.inventory_quantity` doe not make sense (Cannot create property 'inventory_quantity' on boolean 'false') https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/30a28e28f8dd27cf2c88df65e5ff47eab59360c7/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_quant_model.js#L626-L627

Fix:

We adapt the `_processPackage` of the `BarcodeQuantModel` to mimic the existing 'update' behavior on the `BarcodePickingModel`: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/30a28e28f8dd27cf2c88df65e5ff47eab59360c7/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_picking_model.js#L2110-L2133
Note that UOM converstion should not be required since quants are already uniformly expressed in the product uom:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/30b4edace6b0859cb1b1ba4f7f2ea80ba5398e3d/addons/stock/models/stock_quant.py#L52-L54

opw-5864591

## Issue
When generating a DMFA report with a working schedule with more or less than 5 days a week, the *Days Per Week* value in the report is still appearing as 5.

## Steps to reproduce
1. Install *Belgium - Payroll* (`l10n_be_hr_payroll`)
2. In Payroll's Settings:
    - set *ONSS Registration Number* to `0830123456`
    - set *DMFA Employer Class* to `083`
    - create a *Work Address DMFA code* (any name, any numeral code, but set the *Working Address* to the Belgian company used for the rest of the steps)
3. In Employees' Settings, set the *Company Working Hours* to a new Working Schedule, with 9 hours/day, 4 days/week. E.g from Monday to Thursday included:
    - Work from 8:00 to 12:00
    - Lunch from 12:00 to 13:00
    - Work from 13:00 to 18:00
4. Create an Employee E for the Belgian company:
    - In the *Payroll* tab, set the start date of the contract to 01/01/2026.
    - In the *Personal* tab, set the *NISS Number* to `85073003328`
5. Create the payslip for January 2026 for the Employee E.
6. In Payroll > Reporting > Belgium > DMFA, create a new DMFA for the first quarter of 2026 and generate the PDF report
7. **In the generated PDF report, the _Days per Week_ line is set to 5.**

## Cause
The number of days was calculated by multiplying `5` with the `work_time_rate` of the related calendar. This is inaccurate in the case of a company where employees are only expected to work 4 days a week.

opw-6103934

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#116667
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#113804

In odoo/enterprise#106192, we have modified the function userPermissionViewOnly that was preventing the user from editing document he cannot: we have removed the condition preventing user to edit protected document (mainly folder at the company root). That was an error as even if the user has "edit" access (which is ensured in that method), the document can still be protected and the form to edit it should be in readonly then. We ensure here that the form in the details panel is in readonly in that case.

How to reproduce:
- log as demo and go to Document
- Click on Inbox folder
- Open details panel
- Change for example the contact of the document
You get an error while you shouldn't be able to edit it (as the folder is protected).

Technical note: we re-add the condition in the method userPermissionViewOnly:
(!this.documentService.userIsDocumentManager
&& this.record.data?.user_folder_id === "COMPANY")
that we slightly modify to limit the protected document to folder only:
(!this.documentService.userIsDocumentManager
&& this.record.data?.user_folder_id === "COMPANY"
&& this.record.data?.type === "folder")

Task-5881531

Steps to reproduce:
====
- Install the project_mrp_account module.
- Enable the 'Routes' and 'Replenish on Order' options in Inventory.
- Create products with a multilevel MO.
- Create a Sale Order that triggers Manufacturing Orders (MO), then validate it.
- Go to the Project Dashboard and check the costs in the profitability section.

Issue:
====
 - Currently, the system sums the amount of all MOs without differentiating between source and child MOs. This results in double-counting of manufacturing costs in the profitability report.

Cause:
====
 - In 'account.analytic.line', the domain is only based on 'auto_account_id' and 'category'. There is no relation or differentiation between source and child MOs, so costs are aggregated incorrectly.

Fix:
====
 - We can filter out all the child MO's by checking out all MO's linked with
  that specific project. Only these source MOs are considered for cost calculation 
  in the project profitability dashboard, avoiding duplication. Only these source MOs 
  are considered for cost calculation in the project profitability dashboard, avoiding duplication.

task-4969489

# Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

A recent change introduced by PR [#242365](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/242365) removed a company guard when importing bank information from EDI documents.
As a result, during Factur-X and UBL 2.0 imports, Odoo may attempt to create or link a bank account on the wrong partner, leading to company constraint errors when importing credit notes.

This issue primarily affects outbound credit notes, where Odoo incorrectly tries to import the company’s own bank account as a partner bank.

<img width="1195" height="915" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/b93d9ec4-8840-4e06-87ed-8590cfe9149d" />


# Current behavior before PR:

During Factur-X and UBL 2.0 imports:
- Bank information extracted from the XML is always passed to _import_partner_bank, regardless of the document type.
- For sales documents (out_invoice, out_refund), the bank account in the XML belongs to the company itself.
- Odoo then attempts to create or assign this bank account to the partner, triggering an error such as:

> Incompatible companies on records: Invoice belongs to company A, bank account belongs to another company.

- Vendor invoices (in_invoice) work by chance, but the logic is incorrect and fragile.
- The behavior is inconsistent with how Factur-X and UBL define PayeePartyCreditorFinancialAccount (always the seller’s bank).


# Desired behavior after PR is merged:

Bank details are imported only for purchase documents (in_invoice, in_refund), where the seller is the vendor and importing their bank account is correct.
- For sales documents (out_invoice, out_refund), the import of bank details is skipped, avoiding:
- Incorrect partner bank creation
- Company constraint errors
- This behavior is implemented consistently for: Factur-X imports, UBL 2.0 imports

The fix uses invoice.is_purchase_document() ensuring:
- Vendor bank details continue to be imported correctly
- No regression for existing Factur-X vendor invoice flows
- Credit note imports behave correctly again


Odoo-ticket: [5877901](https://www.odoo.com/my/tasks/5877901)

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

### Issue before this commit:
Opening the Purchase Matching wizard would crash if the vendor bill contained lines with a description and a Unit of Measure (UoM), but no product selected.

### Steps to reproduce the issue:
1. Enable Units of Measure in Settings
2. Create and confirm a Vendor Bill setting a description and a UoM, but leave the Product field empty.
3. Click on "Purchase matching" smart button
4. The system throws a traceback with the error: "The unit of measure Unit defined on the order line doesn't belong to the same category as the unit of measure False defined on the product."

### Cause of the issue:
In the purchase.bill.line.match model, the field product_uom_qty was computed by calling _compute_quantity using line.product_uom_id. Since product_uom_id is a related field on product_id.uom_id, it returns False when no product is set. The UoM conversion logic cannot handle a False destination category, leading to the crash.

### Reason to introduce the fix:
Make purchase matching robust when imported vendor bills contain lines identified only by their description and not by a product. Note that for `purchase.bill.line.match` corresponding to an account.move.line but not related to any product, the `product_uom_qty` should match the quantity of the `aml_id` instead of attempting a UoM conversion based on a missing 
product UoM for the behavior to be consistent with the inverse method:

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/59d6232979b8499fde6cb700df1870e2e38d0d3e/addons/purchase/models/purchase_bill_line_match.py#L45-L54

opw-5911526

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

When a draft POS order saved by another session is loaded in a trusted POS,
reward lines with an automatically applied discount cause a traceback.

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
* In POS Settings, enable Trusted POS between two configs
* Create an automatically applied discount on a product
* In POS 1: add the product, select a customer, save the order for later
* In POS 2 (trusted): open the saved order, select a payment method and validate
> Observation:
TypeError: Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'id')

Why the fix:
------------
When POS 1 serializes the draft order, temporary negative coupon IDs on reward lines are stripped to `undefined` (pos_order_line.js serialize()). When POS 2 loads the order and tries to validate it, several code paths access `.id` directly on `coupon_id` without guarding against `undefined`:

Additionally, `updateRewards()` keeps the stale reward line while the auto-claim creates a fresh one, so the order briefly holds two discount lines. The second `orderUpdateLoyaltyPrograms()` then computes loyalty points against both lines, producing a wrong result. Fixed by deleting stale reward lines (coupon_id = undefined) at the start of `updateRewardsMutex.exec()` so the auto-claim creates a single correct line.

opw-6049469

When selling event tickets in POS while offline, the order could be synced later but without creating event registrations (tickets) after a page reload.

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
* Open a POS session with `pos_event`
* Sell an event ticket
* Switch to offline mode
* Validate payment while offline (order becomes paid but unsynced)
* Reload/close and reopen POS, then reconnect
* Let the order sync

> Observation:
The `pos.order` is created on the backend, but `event.registration` and `event.registration.answer` are missing so tickets are not generated.

Why the fix:
------------
`pos_event` used `order.finalized` as IndexedDB cleanup condition for `event.registration` and `event.registration.answer`. For paid-but-unsynced orders, `finalized` is already true, so those records can be removed from IndexedDB too early. After reload, the order is restored/synced but without its event registration payload.

Implementation:
---------------
Use `order.canBeRemovedFromIndexedDB` instead of `order.finalized` for `event.registration` and `event.registration.answer` retention rules, so records are kept locally until the order is truly synced (server id assigned) or canceled.

Test Note:
---------------
Use case is hard to simulate exactly.
Add a basic unit test to assert both registration models are kept for paid unsynced orders and only removable once synced.

opw-6056079

When a sale order containing a product with a custom (free text) attribute was settled in POS, the order line displayed the placeholder attribute value name (e.g. "Custom") instead of the actual text entered by the customer.

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
* Create a product with a free text attribute (create_variant='no_variant', is_custom=True)
* Go to the website's shop (works best in a new private tab)
* Fill the free text attribute and add the product to the cart
* Click on checkout
* In POS, open Quotation/Order and settle the order

> Observation:
the order line shows "Custom" instead of the text

Why the fix:
------------
`SaleOrderLine._load_pos_data_fields` was not exposing `product_no_variant_attribute_value_ids` nor `product_custom_attribute_value_ids`, so the JS `settleSO` function received no attribute data on the `line` object. As a result, the new POS order line was created with empty `attribute_value_ids` and `custom_attribute_value_ids`, leaving `constructFullProductName` unable to find the custom text.

The fix adds both fields to `_load_pos_data_fields` and updates `settleSO` to use them when building the new POS order line. The dynamic fetch path (`_getSaleOrder`) is also updated to explicitly read the `product.attribute.custom.value` records so the data is available for orders loaded at runtime.

opw-5958678

### Steps to reproduce:
- Download 'Sales', 'Accounting', and 'l10n_sa_edi' modules
- Settings > Accounting > Rounding Method > Enable global rounding
- Create sale order with 8 lines at 29.7 each with 15% taxes (triggers rounding precision issues)
- Create and confirm 100% downpayment invoice
- Deliver, then create final invoice with downpayment lines
- Call `_l10n_sa_get_prepaid_amount()` on final invoice
> Tax amount was calculated as 35.67 instead of correct 35.64

### Cause of Issue:
The prepaid amount calculation was summing pre-rounded `tax_amount_currency` values from individual downpayment lines (4.45 + 4.46 + 4.46... = 35.67), instead of summing unrounded `raw_tax_amount_currency` values (4.455 × 8 = 35.64) to calculate `tax_amount`. https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/27930ae41a5f03bd499983109de7f632472c3650/addons/l10n_sa_edi/models/account_edi_xml_ubl_21_zatca.py#L227-L240

This violates Odoo's [recent change](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/180062) in `round_globally` pattern which states:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/8a88756bed194910bc5a47e93f0e29610dbeee1f/addons/account/models/account_tax.py#L2208

### Fix:
Ensure cumulative rounding errors are avoided and correct global rounding is applied.

opw-5881564

Step to reproduce:
- have two attributes A and B
- A has only 1 attribute value with is_custom = True
- B can have any two value ( ex. gender: male/female)
- use it on a product  and make it available in POS for kiosk
- start kiosk and open that product

Observation:
- we do not get option to select option from A but the heading is visible
- when we select from B, Add to cart is disabled.

Cause:
- we do not allow attribute values with is_custom = True in kiosk
- but we display the attribute regardless
- the Add to cart btn depends on `selectedValues`, which requires value from each attribute, in this case, we are not seletion anything from A
- so it is disabled

Fix:
- we introduced  `attributesToDisplay` which will hide heading in case of single custom value for any attribute
- for Add to cart, wenow do not expect value from `is_custom`  attribute values.

Before:
<img width="1834" height="854" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/ae0d6d91-c3b6-47e9-8c08-f55efc6e0a33" />

After:
<img width="1830" height="828" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/7e2376b6-4704-4039-9db0-0b0bf822c33d" />


opw-6100965

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

**Steps to reproduce:**
* Install the *Accounting* module.
* Install localisation modules for two different regions:
  * *Belgium* (**l10n_be**)
  * *Luxembourg* (**l10n_lu**)
* Configure two companies, each assigned to one of the above regions.
* Create fiscal positions:
  * In the Belgium company, create a fiscal position for Luxembourg.
  * In the Luxembourg company, create a fiscal position for Belgium.
* Go to *Accounting > Configuration > Settings*. Enable *Inter-Company Transactions*. Enable synchronization of *Vendor Bills and Invoices* for both companies.
* Create an invoice in the Luxembourg company. Select a partner belonging to the Belgium company. Add a product with applicable taxes.

**Observed behavior:**
* A validation error is raised: 'This entry contains taxes that are not compatible with your fiscal position. Please check the country set in the fiscal position and in your tax configuration.'

**Cause:**
* During intercompany bill creation, a foreign fiscal position is applied before recomputing taxes.
* If no mapped foreign taxes exist, the system keeps domestic purchase taxes.
* This leads to a mismatch between taxes and fiscal position, triggering the validation error.

**Fix:**
* Add a safeguard in *_inter_company_create_invoices()*.
* After *_inter_company_sync_invoice_line_taxes()* recomputes taxes, *_inter_company_has_incompatible_fiscal_position_taxes()* checks whether the fiscal position is incompatible.
* If incompatible, the fiscal position is removed and taxes are recomputed without it.

opw-6103671