**Steps to reproduce:**

- Install `quality_control` and `mrp` modules with demo data
- Go to Quality → Quality Points → Create(New)
- In the `Type` field, observe that options such as
  'Print Label', 'Register Production', etc. appear
  regardless of the selected `Operations`

**Issue**:

Types like `print_label`, `register_production`,
`register_byproducts`, and `register_consumed_materials`
are displayed even when the Operations is not
Manufacturing and when no work order operation is defined.

**Expected behavior**:

These `types` should only be available when:
- `Operations` Type = Manufacturing
- `work order operation` is set

**Cause**:

The custom search logic for the `allow_registration` boolean field
relied on receiving a direct `True` or `False` value.
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/de3682c7f50b68c19d3a3429fa3768c447074f50/mrp_workorder/models/quality.py#L104
Before `saas-18.3`, the `value` passed to the domain search method was
a plain boolean(True/False).
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/de3682c7f50b68c19d3a3429fa3768c447074f50/mrp_workorder/models/quality.py#L21-L24

Starting from `saas-18.3`, the value is passed as
`OrderedSet([True])`. while the operator received is `in`
or `not in`.
Because the value always arrives `OrderedSet([True])`, 
the condition checking the `value` is always
evaluated as truthy. As a result, the code never reaches the
else branch of the logic, which causes the incorrect domain
behavior.


The issue is caused by how Odoo optimizes boolean domains.
When we pass:
    ('allow_registration', '=', False)
the value correctly reaches the base domain logic as
`allow_registration = False`.
But during domain processing at:

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/347c46f8ecff7ae97c2a686bf5750374b6c3e2d3/odoo/orm/domains.py#L967

it optimize it to:
    ('allow_registration', 'in', [False])
Then `_optimize()` is called, which again calls
`_optimize_step()`:

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/347c46f8ecff7ae97c2a686bf5750374b6c3e2d3/odoo/orm/domains.py#L459

Inside `_optimize_step()` at:

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/347c46f8ecff7ae97c2a686bf5750374b6c3e2d3/odoo/orm/domains.py#L971

it is further simplified to:n ('allow_registration', 'not in', [True])
Similarly, when we pass:  ('allow_registration', '=', True)
it becomes:  ('allow_registration', 'in', [True])
This is expected behavior.

The custom search method for `allow_registration`
was not handling these optimized forms correctly,
which caused Issue.

**FIX:**

- Use the domain `operator (in / not in)` to determine the intended
boolean condition instead of relying on the received value(OrderedSet([True])).

- This is correct because Odoo normalizes boolean domains to only two
forms during optimization: in [True] and not in [True]. Therefore,
the operator reliably indicates whether the condition expects
True or False, allowing the search method to handle the domain
correctly.

---
opw-5915197

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------------------
1. Install `l10n_be_hr_payroll_sd_worx` module
2. Switch the active company to a Belgian company
3. Go to Employees and create a new employee. Set the Employee Type to Freelancer from HR Settings page.
4. Navigate to Payroll > Reporting > Export Work Entries to SDWorx

Observation:
-------------------------------
A user error is raised stating:
```
There is no SDWorx code defined for the following employees
```

Issue:
-------------------------------
In https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/106065/changes/c19009c776349c3f5d8aebf99aff8efe987b54db The Check for Freelance Employee type was removed, which was earlier added in the fix https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/102211/changes/96724c3cc55725e87e618443b96069921b8f3bda

Solution:
-------------------------------
Add a condition to the employee filter to exclude freelance employees from the SDWorx code validation.

opw-5387342

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#114411

**Purpose**:
A user with planning manager rights but no access to employee and contract
 records should be able to copy and movea planning slot to an employee with
  a flexible resource_calendar without getting an access rights error.

**Before this commit:**
When copying a planning slot, the system tries to compute the working hours
 over the period of the slot. This will raise an access rights error if the
  user doesn't have access to employee and contract records when the slot is
   moved to a flexible resource_calendar.

**After this commit:**
The user can copy a planning slot without access rights error with only planning manager rights, even if the slot is moved to a flexible resource_calendar.

**Steps to reproduce:**
1.Install Planning and Planning Contract modules.
2.Create a user with only planning manager rights and no access to employee and contract records.
3.Copy a planning slot to an employee with a flexible resource_calendar.

opw-6166557

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#115953

## Issue
When making a request for quotation for a subcontracted product and returning the delivery "for exchange", the new incoming delivery does not have the correct destination. Instead of having the stock of the user, the destination of the new incoming delivery is the same as its source: the subcontracting location.

<img width="1254" height="257" alt="5479900" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/c7e6d392-8328-4a03-a71e-466e768f448b" />

## Steps to reproduce
1. Install MRP Subcontracting (`mrp_subcontracting`) and Purchase (`purchase`)
2. In Settings, enable *Subcontracting*
3. Create a Product P and a subcontracting BoM with Subcontractor S
4. Create a Request for Quotation
    - Vendor: Subcontractor S
    - Product: Product P (any quantity > 0)
5. Confirm the RFQ, receive the PO, validate the picking
6. On the validated picking, click *Return*, set the quantity of products to return, and click *Return for Exchange*
    - This creates two new pickings, one to return the product(s) we received, and one to receive new products
7. Validate the two new pickings
8. **In Inventory > Reporting > Moves History, the very last `stock.move.line` has the same location in the *From* (`location_id`) and the *To* (`location_dest_id`) columns**

## Cause
The `location_dest_id` of the new `stock.move` is updated in `StockReturnPickingLine._prepare_move_default_values`.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/fb534f1eadcb8ef74e2ee6fd5b68872dddb978e3/addons/mrp_subcontracting/wizard/stock_picking_return.py#L20-L25

The condition added by https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/5404b426aac9 sets the destination of all returned subcontracted moves to the subcontractor location. This is incorrect when using "return for exchange", as in this case, the return move is directed towards the user's stock. In fact, when using "return for exchange", the following pickings are created:

| id | name         | return_id |   |
|:--:|--------------|:---------:|---|
| 1  | WH/IN/00001  |           | Initial RFQ delivery |
| 2  | WH/OUT/00001 |     1     | Return of the initial RFQ delivery |
| 3  | WH/IN/00002  |     2     | New products delivery to replace the initial delivery. The stock.move.line of this stock.picking has a wrong `location_dest_id` |

## Fix
In the context of return for exchanges, the returned item must be directed to the *Subcontracting Location* while the new item must be directed to   the *Stock*. In the `_prepare_move_default_values`, we should only set   the `location_dest_it` to the subcontractor location for outgoing pickings.

opw-5479900

**Steps to reproduce:**
* Install the *Accounting* module with French localization (*l10n_fr_account*).
* Create a *Sales Tax* with:
  * A new tax group (e.g., 'Codifab').
  * Enable *Affect Base of Subsequent Taxes*.
* Create a *Sales Order*:
  * Add the first tax (with *Affect Base of Subsequent Taxes*).
  * Then add the second tax (eg VAT tax).
* Confirm the *Sales Order*.
* Create a *Down Payment Invoice* (percentage-based).
* Open the generated invoice and:
  * Remove the first tax (the one affecting the base).

**Observed behavior:**
* The amount of the second tax group does not update after removing the first tax, leading to incorrect tax computation.

**Cause:**
* In `_import_base_line_extra_tax_data`, the condition: `all(str(tax.id) in extra_tax_data['manual_tax_amounts'] for tax in sorted_taxes)` only ensured partial matching of taxes.
* This allowed reuse of stale `manual_tax_amounts` when taxes were removed or modified, causing incorrect base values for dependent taxes (e.g., *Affect Base of Subsequent Taxes*).

**Fix:**
* Update the condition to enforce an exact match between current taxes and cached `manual_tax_amounts` by checking both size and membership.
* Prevent reuse of outdated tax data when taxes change, ensuring proper recomputation of dependent taxes.
* Align Python logic with the JS implementation for consistency between `account_tax.py` and `account_tax.js`.

opw-6063970

Sending the final invoice of a sale order to ZATCA crashed with `ValueError: Expected singleton: account.move(a, b)` when the sale order had multiple down-payment references.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Configure a SA company and setup ZATCA
2. Create a sale order and confirm it
3. Deliver the product line.
3. From the sale order, create a down-payment invoice (fixed amount, e.g. 115) and post it (DP1).
4. On DP1, click "Credit Note" and choose "Full refund and new draft invoice"; validate. DP1 becomes `reversed` and a new draft down-payment DP2 is created. Post DP2.
5. From the sale order, create the final regular invoice and post it.
6. Send the final invoice to ZATCA (or generate its XML) -> `ValueError: Expected singleton: account.move(a, b)`.

Root cause: _l10n_sa_get_line_prepayment_vals looks up the related down-payment move through the down-payment sale order line shared with the product line. The filter matched any out_invoice with _is_downpayment() == True, so the reversed DP1 and the active DP2 both ended up in the recordset, and reading .name raised the singleton error.

Prefer non-reversed down-payment moves when available, but fall back to reversed ones if no alternative exists (e.g.
when generating a credit note of the final invoice after the original down-payment was itself reversed).

opw-6116265

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#260980
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#259384