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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#113760

Steps to reproduce:
- Install web_enterprise and im_livechat on v18
- Migrate the database to v19
- Create a new user

Issue:
- On v18 → v19 migrated databases, creating a new user may fail with a ValidationError:

   The operation cannot be completed: Missing required value for the
   field 'Color Scheme' (color_scheme).
   Model: 'User Settings' (res.users.settings)
   - create/update: a mandatory field is not set
   - delete: another model requires the record being deleted, you can archive it instead
<img width="1155" height="286" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/57ad515a-c5fd-4826-9a7b-84d70c711af7" />

Cause:
- The im_livechat module defines a computed field livechat_lang_ids https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/19.0/addons/im_livechat/models/res_users.py#L24 with an inverse method that may run during user creation https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/19.0/addons/im_livechat/models/res_users.py#L114 before the res.users.settings record exists. In that case, the inverse method attempts to create the settings record without mandatory defaults.

Fix:
- By lowering the priority of the res.users.form.color_scheme view, the color_scheme field is loaded earlier, which triggers the proper creation of res.users.settings with default values. This ensures the livechat inverse updates an existing settings record instead of creating an incomplete one.

- OPW - 5435731
- UPG - 3794624

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#115933

Steps to reproduce:
===================
1. Go to the shop page and use the rental date picker to select a start and end date with hours.
2. Find a rental product configured with "Days" pricing.
3. Add to card directly from the product card
4. Add a rental product from product image that has date type value date
5. Go to that product details page.
6. Click add to cart

-> Invalid operation, You cannot mix different rental periods...

Cause:
======
When adding a product from the shop list view, the system uses the default start/end dates (from the rental period) exactly as first added.

However, the "Add to Cart" logic on the product details page attempts to adapt the selected dates to the product's specific rental unit (e.g., normalizing the time component for 'Day' pricing).

This re-calculation creates a timestamp mismatch between the item already in the cart (from the shop view) and the new item being added (from the details page).

Solution:
=========
The add-to-cart flow has been updated to correctly utilize the default duration values (the globally selected dates) if they exist.

opw-5450576

Relativedelta on UTC dates or time-zoned dates doesn't return the same result. 
In order to calculate consistent prices (price for 1 month in December = price for 1 month in January), we need to work on time-zoned dates.

Example: 
Consider a website in UTC+1 (Brussels timezone DST off).
And a rental from the 01/12/2025 to the 31/12/2025 = by design, from the 01/01/2025 00h00 (start_date) to the 31/12/2025 23h59 (end_date). 
Converted in UTC for the back-end, we have:
from the 30/11/2025 23h00 to the 31/12/2025 22h59.
relativedelta(end_date, start_date) = time between the 2 dates is calculated as follow:
30/11/2025  23h00 + 1 month = 30/12/2025 23h00 +23h59 = 31/12/2025 22h59. 
Time difference = 1 month, 23 hours, 59 minutes. 
Price = 2 months. 

Consider a second rental from the 01/01/2026 to the 31/01/2026. 
31/12/2025 23h00 + 30 days = 30/01/2026 23h + 23h59 = 31/01/2026 22h59. 
Time difference = 30 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes.
Price = 1 month. 

opw-5130762

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#114086
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#98571

Steps to Reproduce (Fresh Database):
--------------------------------------
1. Install `Manufacturing` (mrp) and `PLM` (mrp_plm) modules
2. Create a product > New -- Name: "Test Product" > Save
3. Create BoM v1
   - Go to Manufacturing > Products > Bills of Materials > New --Product: Test Product
   - Add component: any
4. Create and apply ECO 1 on BoM v1
   - Go to PLM > ECOs > New-- Product: Test Product | Apply on: Bill of Materials
   - BoM: Test Product (v1) > Confirm > Apply Changes
   - This creates BoM v2 (previous_bom_id = BoM v1)
5. Create and apply ECO 2 on BoM v2
   - Same as step 4 but select BoM v2
   - This creates BoM v3 (previous_bom_id = BoM v2)
6. Create a separate unrelated BoM for the same product
   - Go to Manufacturing > Bills of Materials > New
   - Product: Test Product | Component: "Component B" > Save
7. Create ECO 3 on the separate BoM
   - Go to PLM > ECOs > New - Product: Test Product | Apply on: Bill of Materials
   - BoM: select the separate BoM from step 6 > Confirm

Observed Bug:
-------------
- Open BoM v3 > ECO(s) stat button shows count = 2
- Click the button > opens 3 records (ECO 3 incorrectly included)

Explain:- 
----------
The ECO stat button on the BoM form was showing a mismatched count vs
the actual records opened when clicking it. This happened because
[button_mrp_eco](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/55bfd499660d3eda0abfc9e8ed8c9a2befbd394b/mrp_plm/models/mrp_bom.py#L56) was using all keys from [_get_previous_boms](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/55bfd499660d3eda0abfc9e8ed8c9a2befbd394b/mrp_plm/models/mrp_bom.py#L67)() as the
domain, which includes BoMs from unrelated lineages of the same product
template, while [_compute_eco_data](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/55bfd499660d3eda0abfc9e8ed8c9a2befbd394b/mrp_plm/models/mrp_bom.py#L20) only counts ECOs belonging to the
current BoM's version lineage.

Fixed by filtering the domain to only include BoM IDs whose lineage set
contains the current BoM ID, making the opened records consistent with
the displayed count.

Before Fix
<img width="1901" height="875" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/3208aed5-ebd3-47a3-a457-a7d61b7743cb" />

```
In [24]: labo = self.env['mrp.bom'].browse(710)
In [25]: previous_boms_mapping = labo._get_previous_boms()
In [26]: Test = ['&', ('bom_id', 'in', list(previous_boms_mapping.keys())), ('type', '=', 'bom')]
In [27]: Test
Out[27]:
['&',
 ('bom_id',
  'in',
  [710,
   1991,
   2049,
   1913,
   1840,
   1823,
   1676,
   1759,
   1794,
   1651,
   1604,
   1544,
   1537,
   1527,
   1506,
   1460,
   1265,
   1259,
   1196,
   1221,
   1223,
   1060,
   1029,
   960,
   858,
   850,
   791,
   739,
   723,
   698]),
 ('type', '=', 'bom')]
```

With My Fix
<img width="1824" height="947" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/0d68fdbc-7e42-4ce4-a326-2fb030ba1d06" />

```
In [15]: labo = self.env['mrp.bom'].browse(710)
In [16]: previous_boms_mapping = labo._get_previous_boms()
In [17]: previous_boms_mapping
Out[17]:
{710: {710},
 1991: set(),
 2049: set(),
 1913: set(),
 1840: set(),
 1823: set(),
 1676: set(),
 1759: set(),
 1794: set(),
 1651: set(),
 1604: set(),
 1544: set(),
 1537: set(),
 1527: set(),
 1506: set(),
 1460: set(),
 1265: set(),
 1259: set(),
 1196: set(),
 1221: set(),
 1223: set(),
 1060: set(),
 1029: set(),
 960: set(),
 858: set(),
 850: set(),
 791: set(),
 739: set(),
 723: set(),
 698: {710}}
In [18]: relevant_bom_ids = [
    ...:     bom_id
    ...:     for bom_id, current_bom_set in previous_boms_mapping.items()
    ...:     if labo.id in current_bom_set
    ...: ]
In [19]: relevant_bom_ids
Out[19]: [710, 698]
```

Task-6065020

## Issues
When starting a timer from a task within a project, the timer appears in two locations: the page header, and the task's *Timesheets* tab. The latter does not behave as expected: when opening the *Timesheets* tab,
the timer resets to 00:00, and if the timer was started more than a minute earlier, it begins counting down (00:00, then -00:59, and so on). (**I1**)

A second issue (**I2**), introduced at the same time, is that two timers can run simultaneously if the database is reloaded while a timer is active.

A third issue (**I3**) happens after starting and stopping a timer from the Project app: the timer seems to still be running in the Timesheet app.

## Steps to reproduce
1. Install *Timesheets* (`timesheet_grid`)
2. Create a Project P and a Task T
3. Start the timer for Task T, wait a few seconds, then open the *Timesheets* tab
4. **The timer from the _Timesheets_ tab does not match the one on top of the page**
5. Wait for the timer in the header to reach 00:01:00, then open the *Timesheets* tab again
6. **The timer is going backward**

For the second issue (**I2**), after executing the steps above:
7. Do not stop the timer, but stop the database and start it again
8. Create a new Project P2 and a Task T2
9. Start the timer for Task T2
10. **The timer in the header blinks between the timer from T1 and the newly started timer for T2**

![5879176](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/d9be8b8c-8973-4790-80a5-6f291f0b766a)

For the third issue (**I3**):
1. In the project app, (create a project and a task and) start then stop a timer. Log the time
2. Open the timesheet app
3. **A timer is running**

## Cause
The issues are introduced by the following commit: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/f4c7115fdf.
The commit aimed to resolve an issue in which timers for sample data would start automatically, and the *Stop* button would throw an error. The issue was addressed by updating the condition that defines the `timerRunning`
variable, which controls whether the *Stop* button in the Timesheets app is displayed.

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/ac186aa71cd7e1b80b307ea12c7eaca246afd649/timesheet_grid/static/src/components/timesheet_display_timer/timesheet_display_timer.js#L57-L64

Issue **I1** is a side effect of this change in the Project app, where the `timerRunning` variable is evaluated to `true`, causing the timer to be displayed when it should not.

The multiple timers running simultaneously (**I2**) stems from the `timerRunning` variable being initiated to false by default in the props.

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/64f813dab727d76286c1ff6c80c08cb6a6737b49/timesheet_grid/static/src/components/timesheet_display_timer/timesheet_display_timer.js#L47-L50

The *Stop* button appearing after logging a task (**I3**) stems from the condition of the patch using `is_timer_running` over `timer_start`.

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/64f813dab727d76286c1ff6c80c08cb6a6737b49/timesheet_grid/static/src/hooks/sample_server_patch.js#L9-L15

## Fix
This commit reverts the problematic segments from the previous commit.

opw-5870756
opw-5879176
opw-5961764

__

## Short functional explanation of the error
When for an employee with a Flexible schedule, we set a shift overlapping on two days. The attendance report displays twice the worked hours.

## Reproduction Steps
1. Create an employee with a flexible schedule and with Work Entry Source set at Planning.
2. Go to Planning. Create a Planning Slot for this employee from 9 pm to 5 am, then Send and Publish it.
3. Click on the Reporting tab > Planning / Attendance Analysis.

### Expected behavior
The total for this Month for this employee under the Planned Time field should be equal to 8 hours, which is the duration of the planning slot.

### Unexpected behavior
The total for this Month for this employee under the Planned Time field is equal to 16 hours.

## Origin of the issue
This report is a view, for which the SQL is defined starting this line: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/7362f1c5be7f496bdab660ed8fad37a6dd283616/planning_attendance/report/planning_attendance_analysis_report.py#L27 the issue stems from here:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/7362f1c5be7f496bdab660ed8fad37a6dd283616/planning_attendance/report/planning_attendance_analysis_report.py#L56 where we don't select distinct the planning entries based on their ID. As our shift overlaps 2 days, there will be only one entry for this shift in the `planning_slot`, but because of that, it will be duplicated.

__
opw-6146052

The content of an invoice's section lines is not aligned with the columns when the prices of the section are hidden and the country of origin is displayed in the invoice

Steps to reproduce:
1. Install account_intrastat module
2. Go to Invoicing > Customers > Products and create a new product with name "test" and in the Accounting tab, set the Country of Origin to Afghanistan
3. Go to Invoicing > Customers > Customers and change Acme Corporation's country to United Kingdom
4. Go to Invoicing > Customers > Invoices and create a new invoice for partner Acme Corporation, add a section line and in that section, add product "test"
5. Click on the three dots at the end of the section line and click on Hide Prices
6. Confirm the invoice and print it
7. The content of the section line in the invoice pdf are not aligned (the tax is in column Unit Price and the amount is in column Taxes)

Issue:
When a section is hidden, no column is added in the section to display the origin, resulting in a misalignment of the tax and the amount of the section

Solution:
Add a column for the origin country in hidden section lines and add the origin country in product lines of `_get_child_lines`

opw-6147929

__

## Short functional explanation of the error
When we create 2 shifts for the same day for an employee, on a non-working day for their schedule. When trying to create the second one after setting the end date to midnight, we get the error:
`ValueError: Expected singleton: hr.attendance.overtime.line(2, 3)`

## Reproduction Steps
1. Create an Employee. In the Payroll tab, Make sure they have an active contract. Set their Working Hours to a fixed schedule, where they have saturdays as non-working days. In the Settings tab, set an Overtime Ruleset.
2. Click on the overtime ruleset. Then, for each rule, under Action, set the Work Entry Type To Use as Overtime Hours.
3. Go to Attendances. In Configuration > Settings, under Extra Hours, set the Extra Hours Validation as Approved By Manager.
4. Create an attendance for your Employee on a Saturday, from 12h to 18h.
5. Create a second attendance for your Employee on that same Saturday, from 18h to 00h00. Try to Save.
Note: the timezone of your computer, the working schedule and the employee should be set at Brussels time. 

### Expected behavior
The Overtime is registered.

### Unexpected behavior
An error occurs:
`ValueError: Expected singleton: hr.attendance.overtime.line(2, 3)`

## Origin of the issue
The end time of the overtime is defined as follows: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/47faff7d6c9da5572e3bad3ff5a55b40c2ba81ac/hr_work_entry_attendance/models/hr_version.py#L54-L56 However, in the case where our shift ends after the computed end of the day (in our case, the end time of the shift is 00:00:00 and the end of the day is set at 23:59:59), it creates some problems. The end time of the overtime is set 1 second too early. Later we compute the start time of the overtime as follows: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/47faff7d6c9da5572e3bad3ff5a55b40c2ba81ac/hr_work_entry_attendance/models/hr_version.py#L57 Thus, the time start of the overtime is also set one second too early. As our second shift starts right after the first one, after the execution of this code, we will get a second shift that starts before the end of the first one.
Then, we add these values in a list:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/47faff7d6c9da5572e3bad3ff5a55b40c2ba81ac/hr_work_entry_attendance/models/hr_version.py#L59 which will contain overlapping timeframes, and with which we create an Interval:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/47faff7d6c9da5572e3bad3ff5a55b40c2ba81ac/hr_work_entry_attendance/models/hr_version.py#L60 But when we create an Interval with overlapping timeframes, we obtain only one interval as the timeframes are merged.
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/47faff7d6c9da5572e3bad3ff5a55b40c2ba81ac/hr_work_entry_attendance/models/hr_version.py#L173 As a result, `overtime_intervals` will contain only one time frame with 2 different corresponding overtimes, which causes a singleton error when reaching:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/47faff7d6c9da5572e3bad3ff5a55b40c2ba81ac/hr_work_entry_attendance/models/hr_version.py#L179 __
opw-6096454

__

## Short functional explanation of the error
When setting a time off for an employee who has a flexible schedule, in the attendance app, on the calendar with the 'days' view. We can see that the hours are grayed out from 8 hours to 16 hours. However, according to this message:
https://www.odoo.com/mail/message/1027495005
"[...] the entire day of absence might not be represented as such, which is an issue (for example if a flexible employee with 8h/day takes a day off, the duration of the leave should be 1 day/8 hours but on the gantt view everything should be gray from midnight to midnight)".
Moreover, when we select the Week or Month view on the calendar, the day off isn't grayed out. This comes from the fact that, for a flexible schedule, we consider that any time of the day can be a working hour; and we only grey out days in the calendar where no hour has been worked at all. Hence, the hours considered during a flexible day off should be from midnight to 23:59:59.

## Reproduction Steps
1. Go to an employee's profile and set their schedule to flexible.
2. Create a time off of a one-day duration for this employee.
3. Go to the attendance app and see the calendar.

### Expected behavior
When clicking on the Day view, all hours from midnight to 11pm should be grayed out.

When clicking on the Week/month view, the day of the time off should be grayed out.

### Unexpected behavior
When clicking on the Day view, hours from 8am to 4pm are grayed out.

When clicking on the Week/month view, the day of the time off isn't grayed out.

## Origin of the issue
First, we only consider the leave if the resource is fully flexible, i.e if the employee has no working calendar set:
 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/394a30f8a2814d460cfe220b5017e7ac95d8cddc/addons/resource/models/resource_calendar.py#L546
However, if the schedule of the employee is flexible, the leave resource isn't considered as fully flexible, thus leading us to a leave from 8 am to 4 pm.

Moreover, when processing flexible leaves, we return the unavailable intervals with the timezone of the employee:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/394a30f8a2814d460cfe220b5017e7ac95d8cddc/addons/resource/models/resource_calendar.py#L589-L592 Whereas when we process fixed leaves, we return the unavailable intervals under utc:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/394a30f8a2814d460cfe220b5017e7ac95d8cddc/addons/resource/models/resource_calendar.py#L597-L601

This leads us to display problems: when the user is under European/ Brussels time in summer, the leave starts at 2 am and ends at 11pm, instead of starting at midnight.
Note: after discussion with AJU, it has been agreed that the behavior
should be the same on the Planning app.
__
opw-6030212

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Create a new marketing campaign with two activities
- Set them to occur some number of days after the beginning
- Save the campaign and start it
- Modify one of the activities to occur some number of days after the
other activity and save
- Modify the child activity by changing the number of days after its
parent that it should run and save
- An error will be thrown

**Issue:**
The trace related to the child activity has no parent when trying to reschedule it in `_update_schedule_date`. This causes an issue when trying to get the first mailing_trace_ids using index 0 in this line:
`base_dt_str = trace.parent_id.schedule_date or trace.parent_id.mailing_trace_ids[0].write_date or trace.participant_id.create_date`

**Fix:**
Prevent the activity hierarchy to be modified on started campaigns.
We also change the indexing to avoid further out of range issue and
properly default on the participant create value.

Trying to match existing traces to their parents has too many edge cases when trying to avoid duplicates, and might often need to reset the whole trace chain to work properly. This approach avoids user mistakes on running
campaigns, but if a user tries to launch a test (even on draft campaign) he won't be able to modify the hierarchy further without deleting/recreating some activities/traces. So we should ignore this for test traces, but it could
impact the behavior between test and actual executions.

opw-5362978

Issue:
Unreconciling a payment in a batch payment from a recurring invoice will cause an invoice for the next recurring period to be generated

Steps to reproduce:
1. Create and confirm a monthly recurring invoice
2. Create a payment for the invoice
3. Create a batch payment and add the payment created in step 2 then validate it
4. Create a bank statement line and reconcile it with the batch payment created in step 3
5. Unreconcile the payment from the invoice from the invoice form view
6. Notice that a draft invoice for the next month’s recurring invoice is created

Cause:
When unreconciling the payment from the invoice via the invoice form view, the method “delete_reconciled_line” is called. In the “account_accountant_batch_payment” override of that method, it will reset the invoice back to draft and repost it. However, when posting a recurring invoice, the default behavior is to create the invoice for the next recurrence period

Solution:
Adding a new context flag called “skip_recurring_copy” will prevent the next period’s recurring invoice from being generated when invoices are posted through “delete_reconciled_line”

Community PR: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/263991

opw-6158881

Issue
--------------
When refreshing checks on account returns (e.g. from rapid successive clicks or component re-renders), multiple concurrent RPC calls to `refresh_checks` were being dispatched to the server. This created a race condition that resulted in duplicate `account.return.check` records being generated in the database.

steps to reproduce demonstrated in video: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-A0ZHdYGdv-UL0dqClqK6Kos_iVXoZai/view?usp=sharing

When this happen the `runAllReturnChecks` method fires parallel RPC calls to [`refresh_checks`](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/55bfd499660d3eda0abfc9e8ed8c9a2befbd394b/account_reports/models/account_return.py#L1974-L1992) on the server. In the case of instant multiple RPC calls, parallel threads are dispatched which causes the data preparation stage to run simultaneously.


Because both threads run in parallel, Thread 2 runs its [preparation and existing ](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/55bfd499660d3eda0abfc9e8ed8c9a2befbd394b/account_reports/models/account_return.py#L1986-L1987 )check mechanism before Thread 1 has reached the actual `create()` function [trigger](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/55bfd499660d3eda0abfc9e8ed8c9a2befbd394b/account_reports/models/account_return.py#L1998-L1999).  Consequently, Thread 2's existence check fails to find the record (since Thread 1 hasn't committed it to the database yet), and it considers the record eligible for creation—even though the exact same record is already prepared for creation by Thread 1. This race condition leads to duplicate `account.return.check` records.

   
   
 Logs to demonstrate the thread execution:
--------

```python
2026-04-16 08:30:51,493 14 INFO bsra_4165887_upg werkzeug: 202.131.97.106 - - [16/Apr/2026 08:30:51] "GET /websocket?version=19.0-2 HTTP/1.0" 400 - 1 0.000 0.002
2026-04-16 08:30:51,662 14 INFO bsra_4165887_upg werkzeug: 202.131.97.106 - - [16/Apr/2026 08:30:51] "POST /web/dataset/call_kw/account.report/dispatch_report_action#account.report.dispatch_report_action HTTP/1.0" 200 - 17 0.006 0.012
2026-04-16 08:30:51,847 14 INFO bsra_4165887_upg werkzeug: 202.131.97.106 - - [16/Apr/2026 08:30:51] "POST /web/dataset/call_kw/account.return/get_views#account.return.get_views HTTP/1.0" 200 - 26 0.009 0.025
2026-04-16 08:30:52,099 14 INFO bsra_4165887_upg werkzeug: 202.131.97.106 - - [16/Apr/2026 08:30:52] "POST /web/dataset/call_kw/account.return/web_read_group#account.return.web_read_group HTTP/1.0" 200 - 95 0.029 0.064
2026-04-16 08:30:52,320 14 INFO bsra_4165887_upg werkzeug: 202.131.97.106 - - [16/Apr/2026 08:30:52] "POST /web/dataset/call_kw/account.return/get_next_returns_ids#account.return.get_next_returns_ids HTTP/1.0" 200 - 2 0.001 0.004
                 THREAD NAME: odoo.service.http.request.137360481711808 Thread ID:  137360481711808
                 REFRESH CHECK START:--------------------------------------------
                 Thread ID:   137360481711808 -------------DATA PREPARING STAGE------------
                 Thread ID:   137360481711808
                 Thread ID:   137360481711808     RECORD EXISTING CHECK:  None
2026-04-16 08:30:53,842 14 INFO bsra_4165887_upg werkzeug: 202.131.97.106 - - [16/Apr/2026 08:30:53] "GET /odoo/tax-report/tax-return?debug=1 HTTP/1.0" 200 - 29 0.020 0.021
2026-04-16 08:30:54,066 14 INFO bsra_4165887_upg werkzeug: 202.131.97.106 - - [16/Apr/2026 08:30:54] "GET /web/webclient/load_menus HTTP/1.0" 200 - 4 0.002 0.009
2026-04-16 08:30:54,351 14 INFO bsra_4165887_upg werkzeug: 202.131.97.106 - - [16/Apr/2026 08:30:54] "GET /web/manifest.webmanifest HTTP/1.0" 200 - 6 0.003 0.005
2026-04-16 08:30:54,493 14 INFO bsra_4165887_upg werkzeug: 202.131.97.106 - - [16/Apr/2026 08:30:54] "GET /web/webclient/translations?hash=bb5aa713d587cc7dd07b13d1d7efc2c525517e99&lang=en_US HTTP/1.0" 200 - 1 0.000 0.002
2026-04-16 08:30:54,586 14 INFO bsra_4165887_upg werkzeug: 202.131.97.106 - - [16/Apr/2026 08:30:54] "GET /web/bundle/web_tour.interactive?lang=en_US&debug=1 HTTP/1.0" 200 - 1 0.001 0.003
2026-04-16 08:30:54,640 14 INFO bsra_4165887_upg werkzeug: 202.131.97.106 - - [16/Apr/2026 08:30:54] "POST /web/action/load_breadcrumbs HTTP/1.0" 200 - 7 0.003 0.006
2026-04-16 08:30:54,710 14 INFO bsra_4165887_upg werkzeug: 202.131.97.106 - - [16/Apr/2026 08:30:54] "POST /web/dataset/call_kw/ir.http/lazy_session_info#ir.http.lazy_session_info HTTP/1.0" 200 - 2 0.001 0.004
2026-04-16 08:30:54,753 14 INFO bsra_4165887_upg werkzeug: 202.131.97.106 - - [16/Apr/2026 08:30:54] "GET /bus/websocket_worker_bundle?v=19.0-2 HTTP/1.0" 304 - 3 0.004 0.006
2026-04-16 08:30:54,766 14 INFO bsra_4165887_upg werkzeug: 202.131.97.106 - - [16/Apr/2026 08:30:54] "GET /web/image?model=res.users&field=avatar_128&id=2 HTTP/1.0" 304 - 9 0.012 0.013
2026-04-16 08:30:54,777 14 INFO bsra_4165887_upg werkzeug: 202.131.97.106 - - [16/Apr/2026 08:30:54] "POST /mail/data HTTP/1.0" 200 - 34 0.034 0.020
2026-04-16 08:30:54,824 14 INFO bsra_4165887_upg werkzeug: 202.131.97.106 - - [16/Apr/2026 08:30:54] "POST /web/dataset/call_kw/account.return/get_views#account.return.get_views HTTP/1.0" 200 - 3 0.001 0.010
2026-04-16 08:30:54,934 14 INFO bsra_4165887_upg werkzeug: 202.131.97.106 - - [16/Apr/2026 08:30:54] "POST /web/dataset/call_kw/account.return/web_read_group#account.return.web_read_group HTTP/1.0" 200 - 88 0.029 0.051
2026-04-16 08:30:55,107 14 INFO bsra_4165887_upg werkzeug: 202.131.97.106 - - [16/Apr/2026 08:30:55] "POST /web/dataset/call_kw/account.return/get_next_returns_ids#account.return.get_next_returns_ids HTTP/1.0" 200 - 2 0.001 0.005
                 THREAD NAME: odoo.service.http.request.137360513177280 Thread ID:  137360513177280
                 REFRESH CHECK START:--------------------------------------------
                 Thread ID:   137360513177280 -------------DATA PREPARING STAGE------------
                 Thread ID:   137360513177280
                 Thread ID:   137360513177280     RECORD EXISTING CHECK:  None
2026-04-16 08:30:55,589 14 INFO bsra_4165887_upg werkzeug: 202.131.97.106 - - [16/Apr/2026 08:30:55] "GET /websocket?version=19.0-2 HTTP/1.0" 400 - 1 0.001 0.006
2026-04-16 08:30:56,702 14 INFO bsra_4165887_upg werkzeug: 202.131.97.106 - - [16/Apr/2026 08:30:56] "GET /web/service-worker.js HTTP/1.0" 200 - 1 0.000 0.003
2026-04-16 08:30:58,893 14 INFO bsra_4165887_upg werkzeug: 202.131.97.106 - - [16/Apr/2026 08:30:58] "GET /websocket?version=19.0-2 HTTP/1.0" 400 - 1 0.006 0.023
2026-04-16 08:31:05,296 14 INFO bsra_4165887_upg werkzeug: 202.131.97.106 - - [16/Apr/2026 08:31:05] "GET /websocket?version=19.0-2 HTTP/1.0" 400 - 1 0.001 0.002
                 Thread ID:   137360481711808     DATA to_create:  168
                 Thread ID:   137360481711808 done process create  
2026-04-16 08:31:10,132 14 INFO bsra_4165887_upg werkzeug: 202.131.97.106 - - [16/Apr/2026 08:31:10] "POST /web/dataset/call_kw/account.return/refresh_checks#account.return.refresh_checks HTTP/1.0" 200 - 513 11.611 6.039
                 Thread ID:   137360513177280     DATA to_create:  168
                 Thread ID:   137360513177280 done process create 

```

- OPW: 5917459