**problem:**
On timesheets, the overtime indication next to an employee's name is incorrect when using flexible work schedules. for example: a "Flexible 20h" schedule (4h a day) shows 1h of negative overtime even when the employee has logged exactly 20h for the week.

**steps to reproduce:**
1. Create a new working schedule with flexible hours enabled for example (20h/week, 4h/day average)
2. Assign this schedule to an employee
3. Go to Timesheets, search for the employee
4. Navigate to a past week
5. Enter 4h on each working day
6. Observe the overtime indication shows incorrect value (-01:00)

**cause:**
In `resource/models/resource_calendar.py`, the flexible hours algorithm that determines the date range by converts UTC boundaries to the employee's timezone. When the employee's timezone has a positive UTC offset (UTC+1, like in brussels time zone), `Sun 23:59:59 UTC` becomes `Mon 00:59:59 CET`, pushing `end_date` to the next Monday. This creates an 8 day range instead of 7. The algorithm then starts a new weekly budget for the spillover day and allocates 1 extra hour, making `allocated_hours` 20.9999998 instead of 20.

**fix:**
- Use the UTC date before conversion to the employee's timezone when determining the flexible date range.
- prefer `self` when it is the flexible calendar being queried, so hr_contract's `_get_calendar_at()` override cannot substitute the contract's calendar parameters (full_time_required_hours, hours_per_day) for the flexible ones.

**note**
Updating the test (`test_no_carried_over_leaves_for_flexible_resource`) in `hr_holidays/tests/test_expiring_leaves.py` expected duration logic, is to match the corrected inclusive day range and prevent asserting the previous spillover behavior.
link to the enterprise PR: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/112879

link to the community PR: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/257269

opw-5970511

---

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#116320
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#112879

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#116709

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#260421

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

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

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

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

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

opw-5801126

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263694
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#258310

__
## Short functional explanation of the error
When creating a Purchase Order. We add a line containing a product
that has an analytic distribution. After setting a project on this PO,
when we add another line containing the same product, the analytic
distribution of the product isn't added anymore, only leaving it with
the analytic distribution of the project.

## Reproduction Steps
1. Go to settings and enable Analytic Accounting.
2. Go to Accounting > Configuration > Analytic Distribution model.
Create a model with a product (prd) you remember, and add an analytic
distribution (ad).
3. Go to Project. On a given project (p), select the Hamburger menu and
click Settings. Then, in the Settings tab, under Analytic, make sure
the Project field is filled.
4. Create a new Purchase Order. Select a vendor and add a line with the
product (prd). On the top right of the Form, click on the view button
and select Analytic Distribution to show it on the form.
There, we should see the product (prd) with its corresponding Analytic
Distribution (ad) on the form.
5. Click on the Other Information tab and select the project (p).
Click on the Product tab. There, under Analytic Distribution field,
you should see (ad) and the Analytic Distribution of the project (p).
6. Click on save and add another line with the exact same product.


### Expected behavior
Under Analytic Distribution, we should see (ad) and the Analytic
Distribution of the project (p), as for the first order line

### Unexpected behavior
Under Analytic Distribution, we only see the Analytic  Distribution of
 the project (p).


## Origin of the issue
When we add another line, we trigger the compute method of the
Analytic Distribution. However, due to this piece of code:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/eed303b9926062eb71be6cf8dc95165efc413ed8/addons/project_purchase/models/purchase_order_line.py#L14
when we create a new order line, we never compute its analytic
distribution: `self` will contain only `project_lines`, and
`empty_project_lines` is empty as well. Therefore, we call the super
 method with nothing, so when we get in the
super method:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/eed303b9926062eb71be6cf8dc95165efc413ed8/addons/purchase/models/purchase_order_line.py#L249-L259
we never compute the analytic distribution of the newly created line.

This piece of code was added in this commit:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/c1ea8446259bd3338c004e88d48ad77ded7ef2ae
to fix the issue that when a user enters manually an analytic
distribution, this entry will be lost when triggering the compute of
the analytic distribution.

However, due to the agency of the code, we cannot prevent losing *both*
manually added analytic distributions and product analytic distribution.
After consulting the product owner, we concluded that there was no perfect
solution in this case, but we'd rather keep the product analytic 
distribution, as it is much harder to add it again after its removal. 
Therefore, this commit reverts the previously mentioned commit, while
keeping the refactor it introduced.
__
opw-6063418

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#257558

## The Problem
During the initialization of `stock_account`, the logic creating `product.value` instances triggered cache misses on `product.product`, accessing fields (`company_id` and `standard_price`) inside `_create_product_value`, and field `uom_id` inside `_run_fifo_get_stack`. Due to prefetching, this loaded all product data into memory, causing significant memory usage on large databases.

## The Solution
Disabled prefetching in the full flow.

Didn't go with fetching only the needed fields instead of disabling for two main reasons:
- Field `standard_price` accessed in the loop is company dependent, so it needs to be fetched inside, which would be a bit verbose.
- Fetching `company_id` outside the loop, `standard_price` inside the loop, and `uom_id` which is accessed down the stack in the `.create` call on `product.value` won't be an explicit/robust solution for the long term.

---

## Benchmarks
*Tested on a SaaS database with 500k products:*

| | Before | After | Note |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |  :--- |
| **Memory** | 3.6GB | 1.6GB | **-55%** (fits in memory limit) |
| **Time** | 10m | 11m | **+10%** (acceptable tradeoff) |

**OPW-6173153**

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262702

**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

Currently, an error occurs when a user attempts to mark a payslip as paid.

**Steps to Reproduce:**

 - Install the `hr_payroll` module without demo data.
 - Go to `Payslips` and click on `New Off-cycle`.
 - Create a record > `Compute` > `Validate`, and Pay.
 - In the wizard, enable `Include Unpaid` and select `CSV` mode.
 - Click `Mark as Paid`.

**Error:**
`UnboundLocalError: cannot access local variable 'rows' where it is not associated with a value`

The error occurs when a user tries to mark a payslip as paid with Include Unpaid enabled. 
When the wizard is created from here [1], the default unpaid payslips are empty. In this case, 
the system assigns an empty set of payslips to process [2].and the rows variable is not 
defined because there are no payslips to work on, which raises the error [3].

This commit ensures that when the wizard is created, the matched unpaid payslips are passed to 
the wizard. If the Include Unpaid option is enabled, the unpaid payslips are assigned for processing, 
similar to [4]. The unpaid payslips cannot be empty, as they always include the currently 
processed payslip.
Also, the rows are redefined for each payslip case and updated accordingly. Therefore, this commit 
ensures that the rows are created at the end from grouped payments.

[1] https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/a784d118e076724b02e5c59d9ce5d1815c42b0bf/hr_payroll/models/hr_payslip.py#L792-L809

[2] https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/e971fca0d09e564ae9029f3d7e166e078c44dcbb/hr_payroll/wizard/hr_payroll_payment_report_wizard.py#L56

[3] https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/e971fca0d09e564ae9029f3d7e166e078c44dcbb/hr_payroll/wizard/hr_payroll_payment_report_wizard.py#L97

[4]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/a784d118e076724b02e5c59d9ce5d1815c42b0bf/hr_payroll/models/hr_payslip_run.py#L274-L288

sentry-7436885639

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#115090

We do not need this extra aggregate expression.

The purpose of this aggregate expression is only
to invert the sign of the computation returned by
the expression account_tax_report_payg_w2_tag. Instead of doing the sign inversion through a separate aggregate expression, we can directly include the negative (-) sign in account_tax_report_payg_w2_tag itself, as already done in the new report expressions.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/30b4edace6b0859cb1b1ba4f7f2ea80ba5398e3d/addons/l10n_au/data/bas_a.xml#L386 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/2c9ab8e77db7aa127a259f7f3e06ecfed94252ab

Why is this fix needed?

This aggregate expression creates issues during the tax_to_invert upgrade process. Since the sign conversion is handled through a separate expression, the upgrade query is unable to correctly identify the actual expression sign, which leads to incorrect computations during migration.

Related PR: https://github.com/odoo/upgrade/pull/10162

- OPW: 6097598

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

Current behavior before PR:

Desired behavior after PR is merged:




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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263469

Step to reproduce
- Install the accountant module.
- create a fiscal year  (for 01/01/26 to 30/06/26) from setting and enable it
- Navigate to Accounting > Report > Balance Sheet
- Click the `Comparison` smart button and set `Previous Period` to `2 periods`.

Observation:
- we face a traceback
``` File "/home/odoo/odoo/codebase/enterprise/saas-19.2/account_reports/models/account_report.py", line 5739, in _get_annotations
    period_date_from = self._adjust_date_for_joined_comparison(options, period_date_from)
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/odoo/codebase/enterprise/saas-19.2/account_reports/models/account_report.py", line 5695, in _adjust_date_for_joined_comparison
    return min(period_date_from, comparison_date_from)
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
TypeError: '<' not supported between instances of 'datetime.date' and 'str'
```

Cause:
- `_get_period_dates` return string in case we have date which falls in
`custom_range_match`, when `get_report_information` is called, while
`period_date_from` is of type date
- hence there is mismatch between types

Fix:
- `_get_period_dates` is supposed to return date object always, hence fixed the
return type in case we have match for custom range

opw-6185629

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

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

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

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

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

opw-5801126

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263694
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#258310

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#116709

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#260421

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

__
## Short functional explanation of the error
When creating a Purchase Order. We add a line containing a product
that has an analytic distribution. After setting a project on this PO,
when we add another line containing the same product, the analytic
distribution of the product isn't added anymore, only leaving it with
the analytic distribution of the project.

## Reproduction Steps
1. Go to settings and enable Analytic Accounting.
2. Go to Accounting > Configuration > Analytic Distribution model.
Create a model with a product (prd) you remember, and add an analytic
distribution (ad).
3. Go to Project. On a given project (p), select the Hamburger menu and
click Settings. Then, in the Settings tab, under Analytic, make sure
the Project field is filled.
4. Create a new Purchase Order. Select a vendor and add a line with the
product (prd). On the top right of the Form, click on the view button
and select Analytic Distribution to show it on the form.
There, we should see the product (prd) with its corresponding Analytic
Distribution (ad) on the form.
5. Click on the Other Information tab and select the project (p).
Click on the Product tab. There, under Analytic Distribution field,
you should see (ad) and the Analytic Distribution of the project (p).
6. Click on save and add another line with the exact same product.


### Expected behavior
Under Analytic Distribution, we should see (ad) and the Analytic
Distribution of the project (p), as for the first order line

### Unexpected behavior
Under Analytic Distribution, we only see the Analytic  Distribution of
 the project (p).


## Origin of the issue
When we add another line, we trigger the compute method of the
Analytic Distribution. However, due to this piece of code:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/eed303b9926062eb71be6cf8dc95165efc413ed8/addons/project_purchase/models/purchase_order_line.py#L14
when we create a new order line, we never compute its analytic
distribution: `self` will contain only `project_lines`, and
`empty_project_lines` is empty as well. Therefore, we call the super
 method with nothing, so when we get in the
super method:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/eed303b9926062eb71be6cf8dc95165efc413ed8/addons/purchase/models/purchase_order_line.py#L249-L259
we never compute the analytic distribution of the newly created line.

This piece of code was added in this commit:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/c1ea8446259bd3338c004e88d48ad77ded7ef2ae
to fix the issue that when a user enters manually an analytic
distribution, this entry will be lost when triggering the compute of
the analytic distribution.

However, due to the agency of the code, we cannot prevent losing *both*
manually added analytic distributions and product analytic distribution.
After consulting the product owner, we concluded that there was no perfect
solution in this case, but we'd rather keep the product analytic 
distribution, as it is much harder to add it again after its removal. 
Therefore, this commit reverts the previously mentioned commit, while
keeping the refactor it introduced.
__
opw-6063418

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#257558

## The Problem
During the initialization of `stock_account`, the logic creating `product.value` instances triggered cache misses on `product.product`, accessing fields (`company_id` and `standard_price`) inside `_create_product_value`, and field `uom_id` inside `_run_fifo_get_stack`. Due to prefetching, this loaded all product data into memory, causing significant memory usage on large databases.

## The Solution
Disabled prefetching in the full flow.

Didn't go with fetching only the needed fields instead of disabling for two main reasons:
- Field `standard_price` accessed in the loop is company dependent, so it needs to be fetched inside, which would be a bit verbose.
- Fetching `company_id` outside the loop, `standard_price` inside the loop, and `uom_id` which is accessed down the stack in the `.create` call on `product.value` won't be an explicit/robust solution for the long term.

---

## Benchmarks
*Tested on a SaaS database with 500k products:*

| | Before | After | Note |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |  :--- |
| **Memory** | 3.6GB | 1.6GB | **-55%** (fits in memory limit) |
| **Time** | 10m | 11m | **+10%** (acceptable tradeoff) |

**OPW-6173153**

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262702

# 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

**Steps to reproduce:**

Problem A)
- create a storable product avco perpetual
- add 2 unit in stock and set a cost of 10
- set the invoicing policy as "delivered quantities"
- create and confirm a SO for 2 quantities
- validate the delivery
- click on "Create Invoice" and confirm the invoice
- from the delivery, create and validate a return for 1 unit.
- from the product form, change the cost to 15
- from the sale order, click on "Create Invoice"
- confirm the Credit Note

Problem B)
- create a storable product with fifo perpetual
- confirm a PO for 1 unit at 10 and validate receive
- confirm a PO for 1 unit at 20 and validate receive
- confirm a PO for 1 unit at 60 and validate receive
- create a SO for 3 unit
- deliver 1 unit with backorder
- deliver another unit with backorder
- deliver the last unit
- create and confirm invoice
- return the second delivery
- from the invoice click on 'credit note' and validate
the credit note with a quantity of 1

**Current behavior:**

Problem A)
the cogs is 25

Problem B)
the cogs is 30

**Expected behavior:**

Problem A)
it should be 10

Problem B)
the cogs should be 20 cause the move returned
had a value of 20

**Cause of the issue:**
Inside \_get\_cogs_value(), if there is an original invoice
linked to the credit note we take the unit_price from this invoice.
But, if the credit note is not created from the invoice (via the
Credit Note button) but via the sale order (via create invoices),
the account\_move has no reverse\_entry_id so we won't
use the price_unit from the original line.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/686a0cf67bb1e818baf43309fc94f3f0462097ed/addons/stock_account/models/account_move_line.py#L56-L58
So basically what we do for now is:
If the credit note was created from invoice we use
the unit price from original invoice in all cases.
If the credit note was created from sale order we
use get\_price\_unit in all cases (which will work for
fifo because we'll use the value of the returned
move but fail for avco if the standard price has
changed cause we use the standard price)
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/dccd2256660b1e211707b740074f5fbba95ae149/addons/stock_account/models/stock_move.py#L261-L265

**Fix:**
Regardless of how the credit note is created, if
it's fifo we use get\_price\_unit to adapt to the value
of the moves, if not we use the unit_price from
original invoice

opw-6097090

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#259630

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#116709

__
## Short functional explanation of the error
When creating a Purchase Order. We add a line containing a product
that has an analytic distribution. After setting a project on this PO,
when we add another line containing the same product, the analytic
distribution of the product isn't added anymore, only leaving it with
the analytic distribution of the project.

## Reproduction Steps
1. Go to settings and enable Analytic Accounting.
2. Go to Accounting > Configuration > Analytic Distribution model.
Create a model with a product (prd) you remember, and add an analytic
distribution (ad).
3. Go to Project. On a given project (p), select the Hamburger menu and
click Settings. Then, in the Settings tab, under Analytic, make sure
the Project field is filled.
4. Create a new Purchase Order. Select a vendor and add a line with the
product (prd). On the top right of the Form, click on the view button
and select Analytic Distribution to show it on the form.
There, we should see the product (prd) with its corresponding Analytic
Distribution (ad) on the form.
5. Click on the Other Information tab and select the project (p).
Click on the Product tab. There, under Analytic Distribution field,
you should see (ad) and the Analytic Distribution of the project (p).
6. Click on save and add another line with the exact same product.


### Expected behavior
Under Analytic Distribution, we should see (ad) and the Analytic
Distribution of the project (p), as for the first order line

### Unexpected behavior
Under Analytic Distribution, we only see the Analytic  Distribution of
 the project (p).


## Origin of the issue
When we add another line, we trigger the compute method of the
Analytic Distribution. However, due to this piece of code:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/eed303b9926062eb71be6cf8dc95165efc413ed8/addons/project_purchase/models/purchase_order_line.py#L14
when we create a new order line, we never compute its analytic
distribution: `self` will contain only `project_lines`, and
`empty_project_lines` is empty as well. Therefore, we call the super
 method with nothing, so when we get in the
super method:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/eed303b9926062eb71be6cf8dc95165efc413ed8/addons/purchase/models/purchase_order_line.py#L249-L259
we never compute the analytic distribution of the newly created line.

This piece of code was added in this commit:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/c1ea8446259bd3338c004e88d48ad77ded7ef2ae
to fix the issue that when a user enters manually an analytic
distribution, this entry will be lost when triggering the compute of
the analytic distribution.

However, due to the agency of the code, we cannot prevent losing *both*
manually added analytic distributions and product analytic distribution.
After consulting the product owner, we concluded that there was no perfect
solution in this case, but we'd rather keep the product analytic 
distribution, as it is much harder to add it again after its removal. 
Therefore, this commit reverts the previously mentioned commit, while
keeping the refactor it introduced.
__
opw-6063418

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#257558

## The Problem
During the initialization of `stock_account`, the logic creating `product.value` instances triggered cache misses on `product.product`, accessing fields (`company_id` and `standard_price`) inside `_create_product_value`, and field `uom_id` inside `_run_fifo_get_stack`. Due to prefetching, this loaded all product data into memory, causing significant memory usage on large databases.

## The Solution
Disabled prefetching in the full flow.

Didn't go with fetching only the needed fields instead of disabling for two main reasons:
- Field `standard_price` accessed in the loop is company dependent, so it needs to be fetched inside, which would be a bit verbose.
- Fetching `company_id` outside the loop, `standard_price` inside the loop, and `uom_id` which is accessed down the stack in the `.create` call on `product.value` won't be an explicit/robust solution for the long term.

---

## Benchmarks
*Tested on a SaaS database with 500k products:*

| | Before | After | Note |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |  :--- |
| **Memory** | 3.6GB | 1.6GB | **-55%** (fits in memory limit) |
| **Time** | 10m | 11m | **+10%** (acceptable tradeoff) |

**OPW-6173153**

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262702

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#263593
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#256693

**Steps to reproduce:**

Problem A)
- create a storable product avco perpetual
- add 2 unit in stock and set a cost of 10
- set the invoicing policy as "delivered quantities"
- create and confirm a SO for 2 quantities
- validate the delivery
- click on "Create Invoice" and confirm the invoice
- from the delivery, create and validate a return for 1 unit.
- from the product form, change the cost to 15
- from the sale order, click on "Create Invoice"
- confirm the Credit Note

Problem B)
- create a storable product with fifo perpetual
- confirm a PO for 1 unit at 10 and validate receive
- confirm a PO for 1 unit at 20 and validate receive
- confirm a PO for 1 unit at 60 and validate receive
- create a SO for 3 unit
- deliver 1 unit with backorder
- deliver another unit with backorder
- deliver the last unit
- create and confirm invoice
- return the second delivery
- from the invoice click on 'credit note' and validate
the credit note with a quantity of 1

**Current behavior:**

Problem A)
the cogs is 25

Problem B)
the cogs is 30

**Expected behavior:**

Problem A)
it should be 10

Problem B)
the cogs should be 20 cause the move returned
had a value of 20

**Cause of the issue:**
Inside \_get\_cogs_value(), if there is an original invoice
linked to the credit note we take the unit_price from this invoice.
But, if the credit note is not created from the invoice (via the
Credit Note button) but via the sale order (via create invoices),
the account\_move has no reverse\_entry_id so we won't
use the price_unit from the original line.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/686a0cf67bb1e818baf43309fc94f3f0462097ed/addons/stock_account/models/account_move_line.py#L56-L58
So basically what we do for now is:
If the credit note was created from invoice we use
the unit price from original invoice in all cases.
If the credit note was created from sale order we
use get\_price\_unit in all cases (which will work for
fifo because we'll use the value of the returned
move but fail for avco if the standard price has
changed cause we use the standard price)
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/dccd2256660b1e211707b740074f5fbba95ae149/addons/stock_account/models/stock_move.py#L261-L265

**Fix:**
Regardless of how the credit note is created, if
it's fifo we use get\_price\_unit to adapt to the value
of the moves, if not we use the unit_price from
original invoice

opw-6097090

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#259630

We do not need this extra aggregate expression.

The purpose of this aggregate expression is only
to invert the sign of the computation returned by
the expression account_tax_report_payg_w2_tag. Instead of doing the sign inversion through a separate aggregate expression, we can directly include the negative (-) sign in account_tax_report_payg_w2_tag itself, as already done in the new report expressions.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/30b4edace6b0859cb1b1ba4f7f2ea80ba5398e3d/addons/l10n_au/data/bas_a.xml#L386 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/2c9ab8e77db7aa127a259f7f3e06ecfed94252ab

Why is this fix needed?

This aggregate expression creates issues during the tax_to_invert upgrade process. Since the sign conversion is handled through a separate expression, the upgrade query is unable to correctly identify the actual expression sign, which leads to incorrect computations during migration.

Related PR: https://github.com/odoo/upgrade/pull/10162

- OPW: 6097598

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

Current behavior before PR:

Desired behavior after PR is merged:




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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263469

## 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#116794
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#113804

Issue
-----
Forced full packaging reservation setting is ignored when there is a big quant in stock.

Steps to reproduce
-----
- Enable packagings
- Create a product category "Super Category"
    - Reserve Packagings: Reserve Only Full Packagings
- Create a stored product "AAA"
    - Product Category: Super Category
    - 50 units on hand
    - Packaging: 6-Pack (6 units)
- Create a delivery for 15 units of AAA

> Reservation is made for 15 units

Cause
-----
The rounding to a multiple of the packaging quantity takes the stock quant into account. For our example case, we have 8 full 6-Packs on hand, so the `available_quantity` gets set to 48 when doing

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5e458236ca2ff2ab92c4893495e7a721be902c40/addons/stock/models/stock_quant.py#L923-L925

This leads to the reservation quantity being min(15, 48) = 15

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5e458236ca2ff2ab92c4893495e7a721be902c40/addons/stock/models/stock_quant.py#L927

-----
Ticket:
opw-5974333

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263114
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#257342

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#112578

### 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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#116715

__

## 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#116922
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#115046

### Contains the following commits:

https://github.com/odoo/o-spreadsheet/commit/c2bb3c8379 [REL] 18.3.46 [Task: 0](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/2328/tasks/0)
https://github.com/odoo/o-spreadsheet/commit/998f03a0d3 [FIX] package: husky should run at post install [Task: 0](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/2328/tasks/0)
https://github.com/odoo/o-spreadsheet/commit/5b5147ef7f [FIX] workflow: fix the tag definition [Task: 0](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/2328/tasks/0)
https://github.com/odoo/o-spreadsheet/commit/66808b6063 [FIX] Workflow: fix missing permission to use OpenID Connect [Task: 0](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/2328/tasks/0)
https://github.com/odoo/o-spreadsheet/commit/af50462f8c [FIX] workflow: Split the workflow in parallel jobs [Task: 0](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/2328/tasks/0)

Co-authored-by: Florian Damhaut (flda) <flda@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Anthony Hendrickx (anhe) <anhe@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Alexis Lacroix (laa) <laa@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Lucas Lefèvre (lul) <lul@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Adrien Minne (adrm) <adrm@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Ronak Mukeshbhai Bharadiya (rmbh) <rmbh@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Dhrutik Patel (dhrp) <dhrp@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Rémi Rahir (rar) <rar@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Pierre Rousseau (pro) <pro@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Vincent Schippefilt (vsc) <vsc@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Marceline Thomas (matho) <matho@odoo.com>

__

## 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#116811
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#115046

__
## Short functional explanation of the error
When creating a Purchase Order. We add a line containing a product
that has an analytic distribution. After setting a project on this PO,
when we add another line containing the same product, the analytic
distribution of the product isn't added anymore, only leaving it with
the analytic distribution of the project.

## Reproduction Steps
1. Go to settings and enable Analytic Accounting.
2. Go to Accounting > Configuration > Analytic Distribution model.
Create a model with a product (prd) you remember, and add an analytic
distribution (ad).
3. Go to Project. On a given project (p), select the Hamburger menu and
click Settings. Then, in the Settings tab, under Analytic, make sure
the Project field is filled.
4. Create a new Purchase Order. Select a vendor and add a line with the
product (prd). On the top right of the Form, click on the view button
and select Analytic Distribution to show it on the form.
There, we should see the product (prd) with its corresponding Analytic
Distribution (ad) on the form.
5. Click on the Other Information tab and select the project (p).
Click on the Product tab. There, under Analytic Distribution field,
you should see (ad) and the Analytic Distribution of the project (p).
6. Click on save and add another line with the exact same product.


### Expected behavior
Under Analytic Distribution, we should see (ad) and the Analytic
Distribution of the project (p), as for the first order line

### Unexpected behavior
Under Analytic Distribution, we only see the Analytic  Distribution of
 the project (p).


## Origin of the issue
When we add another line, we trigger the compute method of the
Analytic Distribution. However, due to this piece of code:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/eed303b9926062eb71be6cf8dc95165efc413ed8/addons/project_purchase/models/purchase_order_line.py#L14
when we create a new order line, we never compute its analytic
distribution: `self` will contain only `project_lines`, and
`empty_project_lines` is empty as well. Therefore, we call the super
 method with nothing, so when we get in the
super method:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/eed303b9926062eb71be6cf8dc95165efc413ed8/addons/purchase/models/purchase_order_line.py#L249-L259
we never compute the analytic distribution of the newly created line.

This piece of code was added in this commit:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/c1ea8446259bd3338c004e88d48ad77ded7ef2ae
to fix the issue that when a user enters manually an analytic
distribution, this entry will be lost when triggering the compute of
the analytic distribution.

However, due to the agency of the code, we cannot prevent losing *both*
manually added analytic distributions and product analytic distribution.
After consulting the product owner, we concluded that there was no perfect
solution in this case, but we'd rather keep the product analytic 
distribution, as it is much harder to add it again after its removal. 
Therefore, this commit reverts the previously mentioned commit, while
keeping the refactor it introduced.
__
opw-6063418

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#257558

# How to reproduce
- Enable the analytic accounting in the settings
- Create a PO
- Add a PO line
- Set the Analytic Distribution of that PO line to an Analytic Account of your choice
- Confirm the PO
- Create a Vendor Bill from that PO and confirm the VB
- Go to the Analytic Account chosen before
- Change the Plan of that Analytic Account

# The problem
When the Plan is not set to the "Project Plan", the Purchase Orders smart button disappears

# Why
The Purchases Orders smart button is invisible if the variable purchase_order_count is equal to 0. That field is computed by a function that does a search with the following domain :

```py
[('order_line.invoice_lines.analytic_line_ids.account_id', '=', account.id)]
```

When we change the Plan of the Analytic Account, analytic_line_ids.account_id is set to NULL, so the search return nothing.

Why is that field set to NULL ?

Well, to reference its plan, an Analytic Line does not use a python-defined field. In fact, each time a new Analytic Plan is added to the database, a new column is added to the Analytic Line model. That column's name is x_plan{plan.id}_id or, for the specific case of the "Project Plan", it is account_id

When the Plan of an Analytic Account is changed, it takes every Analytic Line associated with that Plan and switch which column containing the id of the Analytic Account.

Take for exemple the following Analytic Line :

```
(account_id = NULL, x_plan2_id = NULL, x_plan3_id = 1)
```

When the associated Analytic Account's Plan is changed to the "Project Plan", it becomes :

```
(account_id = 1, x_plan2_id = NULL, x_plan3_id = NULL)
```

So, we need to adapt to search so that it uses the right plan's name.

opw-5897037

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263330
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#248236

**problem:**
On timesheets, the overtime indication next to an employee's name is incorrect when using flexible work schedules. for example: a "Flexible 20h" schedule (4h a day) shows 1h of negative overtime even when the employee has logged exactly 20h for the week.

**steps to reproduce:**
1. Create a new working schedule with flexible hours enabled for example (20h/week, 4h/day average)
2. Assign this schedule to an employee
3. Go to Timesheets, search for the employee
4. Navigate to a past week
5. Enter 4h on each working day
6. Observe the overtime indication shows incorrect value (-01:00)

**cause:**
In `resource/models/resource_calendar.py`, the flexible hours algorithm that determines the date range by converts UTC boundaries to the employee's timezone. When the employee's timezone has a positive UTC offset (UTC+1, like in brussels time zone), `Sun 23:59:59 UTC` becomes `Mon 00:59:59 CET`, pushing `end_date` to the next Monday. This creates an 8 day range instead of 7. The algorithm then starts a new weekly budget for the spillover day and allocates 1 extra hour, making `allocated_hours` 20.9999998 instead of 20.

**fix:**
- Use the UTC date before conversion to the employee's timezone when determining the flexible date range.
- prefer `self` when it is the flexible calendar being queried, so hr_contract's `_get_calendar_at()` override cannot substitute the contract's calendar parameters (full_time_required_hours, hours_per_day) for the flexible ones.

**note**
Updating the test (`test_no_carried_over_leaves_for_flexible_resource`) in `hr_holidays/tests/test_expiring_leaves.py` expected duration logic, is to match the corrected inclusive day range and prevent asserting the previous spillover behavior.
link to the enterprise PR: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/112879

link to the community PR: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/257269

opw-5970511

---

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#116638
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#112879

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

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

__

## 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

Pre-requisite:
---------------------------------------
1. Install the Time Off module
2. Create a new company (e.g, Test Company)
3. Create New Timeoff Type: 
    * Ensure a default company is set (e.g, YourCompany)
4. Duplicate the created Time off type: 
    * Remove (Copy) from the name so both records share the same name
    * Clear the Company field on the duplicated record

Steps to reproduce:
---------------------------------------
1. Go to Time Off type which has no Company
2. Allocation Smart button > New
3. Set allocation for some days (e. g, 10 Days) > Approve allocation
4. Now, click on Employee > Time Off smart button
5.  On the Dashboard, you can see allocated leaves
6. Click on any day to create a Time Off Request

Observation:
---------------------------------------
The allocated Time Off Type is not available in the request wizard, even though allocation exists.

Issue:
---------------------------------------
When natively computing allocation statistics for the UI, the `_compute_leaves` loops through a pre-fetched `data_days` structure and incorrectly extracts the calculation metrics by matching the `holiday_status.name` string via a list comprehension lookup index (`item[0]`).
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/73d73c5c6606e0b34c754bfc4de035840951dd3b/addons/hr_holidays/models/hr_leave_type.py#L288-L294

If Time Off Type A and Time Off Type B share the name 'Generic Leave', the list comprehension evaluates sequentially and forcefully maps the dictionary of whichever version structurally sits first in the memory sequence directly onto both overlapping identifiers simultaneously!

Solution:
---------------------------------------
Directly match records using their unique ID.
This ensures that each database record always retrieves its own correct data, preventing any mix-up or accidental sharing of values between records that may have the same name.

opw-6105759

Issue:
When creating a payment with an early payment discount, on an invoice using a cash rounding with a strategy of “Modify tax amount”, the early payment discount lines on the payment journal entry will be far off from the correct amount

Steps to reproduce:
1. Create a sales tax for 8.1%
2. Create a cash rounding record for 0.05 as the rounding precision, “Modify tax amount” as the rounding strategy, and “Nearest” as the rounding method
3. Create a payment term with early payment discount of 2% if paid within 18 days. And reduced tax on early payment. With a due term of 100% 30 days after the invoice date
4. Create an invoice on 1/1 with a subtotal of 339.60 and the tax of 8.1% and add the cash rounding method and payment term created earlier
5. Create a payment for it 9 days later on 1/10 for the full amount after the early payment discount is applied

Cause:
tax_amounts is grabbing the amount for a certain tax from the last line on the invoice with the same tax_repartition_line_id. Usually there is only one tax line representing a certain tax on an invoice. However, when a cash rounding is applied to the invoice with a strategy of “Modify tax amount”, the cash rounding line that is created will also have the same tax_repartition_line_id. In that case, it will grab the amount on the cash rounding line instead of adding the first tax amount with the cash rounding line amount

Solution:
In tax_amounts, add to the accumulating value if a tax repartition line id already exists as a key otherwise, insert it into tax_amounts

opw-5998497