**Problem:**
In view Inventory valuation, generate entry doesn't work when 
multiple companies are selected. 

In the view only the main company matters. 
That means that even if multiple companies are selected, only the stock 
variation lines related to the main company selected are displayed
(which is expected).
But if you then click on 'generate entry' the account move lines created
will have wrong values (not matching the values appearing in the view)

**Steps to reproduce:**
- create 2 new companies (to have clean accounting)
- create a warehouse for both companies
- for both comp, in settings for the 'fiscal localization' set 
Package : Generic Chart of account, if not already set
(to have account journals).

From company 1 : 
- create a storable prod with avco perpetual category
- confirm PO for 2  @ 10, receive 
- bill only 1 @ 10

From company 2: 
- make sure the category is also perpetual average from this 
other company
- confirm PO for 2 @ 50, receive, don't bill

Notice how from the 'Inventory Valuation' view, rightfully,
only the main company matters (no matter what 
other comp are selected):
- If main comp is comp 1 there is stock variation lines
for amount of 10 (which is expected because we have 
20 in stock and only 10 in stock valuation account)
- If main comp is comp 2 there is stock variation lines
for amount of 100 (which is expected because we have 
100 in stock and only 0 in stock valuation account)

With comp 1 and 2 selected and comp 1 as main company: 
- click on 'Generate Entry'

**Current behavior:**
- both line have a balance of 110

**Expected behavior:**
- they should have a balance of 10 as we saw 
on the 'inventory valuation' view

**Cause of the issue:**
To generate the data from the 'inventory valuation' 
view, inside _get_report_data() we call stock_value() 
and stock_accounting_value() to compare values 
from inventory and value from accounting. 
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/dd84309df7fd39e9e97ed02d135d25b211085135/addons/stock_account/report/stock_valuation_report.py#L36-L37

stock_value() sums total_value() of each product in 
the valued accounts
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/dd84309df7fd39e9e97ed02d135d25b211085135/addons/stock_account/models/res_company.py#L90-L94
Whereas stock_acounting_value(), sums the balance 
of each account move line of each valuation account
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/dd84309df7fd39e9e97ed02d135d25b211085135/addons/stock_account/models/res_company.py#L112-L114
All of this is related to the main company because 
we call _get_report_data() with context 'allowed_company_ids' 
set to only the main company
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/dd84309df7fd39e9e97ed02d135d25b211085135/addons/stock_account/report/stock_valuation_report.py#L13

But when we click on generate entry, 
_get_stock_valuation_account_vals() is called with no context
modification to 'allowed_company_ids' so when we call 
stock_value(),
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/dd84309df7fd39e9e97ed02d135d25b211085135/addons/stock_account/models/res_company.py#L238-L239
total_value will be based on both company
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/dd84309df7fd39e9e97ed02d135d25b211085135/addons/stock_account/models/res_company.py#L92

Note that stock_accounting_value() is still rightfully based only 
on main company because we use self.id in the domain
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/dd84309df7fd39e9e97ed02d135d25b211085135/addons/stock_account/models/res_company.py#L105-L108

opw-6168699

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263946
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262776

**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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264710
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#259566

Steps to reproduce
1. In a French company with Intrastat enabled, set up a product whose commodity code has a CN supplementary unit (e.g. 8802 30 00, "p/st") and set `intrastat_supplementary_unit_amount` on it.
2. Post EU customer invoices for that product.
3. Export the DEBWEB2 XML from the Intrastat report.

Issue
The FR export collapses engine rows a second time in `_group_items`, because the DEBWEB2 format groups more aggressively than the SQL. The aggregator only declares `value` and `weight`: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/6ae5d3df6e9305416e4d6f74259cd01753025f42/l10n_fr_intrastat/models/account_intrastat_report.py#L308-L313 Items are then rebuilt as `dict(zip(grouping_key, key_tuple)) | grouped_item_values`. `SU_code` survives (it is in the grouping key), but the numeric `supplementary_units` is in neither side and is silently dropped as soon as two engine rows merge. The template then skips the element because of its `t-if="item.get('supplementary_units')"` guard: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/6ae5d3df6e9305416e4d6f74259cd01753025f42/l10n_fr_intrastat/data/intrastat_export.xml#L61

opw-6139657

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117357
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117033

### Steps to reproduce:

- Install delivery_envia
- Website > Configuration > eCommerce > Delivery Methods > Envia
- Enable the delivery method, sync the carrier and Publish it
- With a portal user > Shop > Add any product to your cart > Checkout
- Register an address a valid 'Chile' address and confirm say: 
    'street and Number': Avenida Providencia 1432, Depto 402
    'city': Santiago 'zip': 8320000
    'country': Chile  'state': Metropolitana
#### > Envia Error: Invalid Option - String is too long at #->properties:destination

### Cause of the issue:

The problem is caused by the fact that Envia's api expects a 2-3 digits to represent state codes: https://docs.envia.com/reference/state-by-code
The mapping from Odoo's code state representation to envia's one is expected ot be performed by this mapping:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/75cba6d5a88ebc4e0f35040a173ac1c443638daf/delivery_envia/models/envia_request.py#L27-L43 when the address is converted here:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/75cba6d5a88ebc4e0f35040a173ac1c443638daf/delivery_envia/models/envia_request.py#L535-L542 That being said, the `Chile`'s code states of have been changed in [6694a3942c58ff1a56c9e4b36edbe126dd1e66f8](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/6694a3942c58ff1a56c9e4b36edbe126dd1e66f8) to match the official Iso but not in the Envia's mapping leading a failling match keeping the 4 charracter long `CL-RM` of the `Metropolitan` state provided in to the Envia's api as address data.

opw-6210007

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117280

Steps to reproduce:
===================
1. Go to Event, open an event page
2. Click "Register" & Select a ticket and confirm
3. Switch to edit mode

=> crash.

Cause:
======
The cleanup callback called `hide()` followed immediately by `dispose()`.
Bootstrap's `hide()` is asynchronous — it registers a `transitionend`
callback that fires `_hideModal()` after the CSS transition. `dispose()`
nullifies `this._element` synchronously via `BaseComponent`, so when the
`transitionend` fires and `_hideModal()` tries to access
`this._element.style`, it crashes with:

  TypeError: Cannot read properties of null (reading 'style')

This happened when switching to edit mode while the event registration
modal was open: the `public.interactions` service stopped the interaction,
triggering the cleanup.

Solution:
=========
Listen for `hidden.bs.modal` (fired at the end of `_hideModal`)
and only `dispose()` inside that handler, ensuring `_element` is still
valid throughout the transition.

task-6133395

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264365

__

## 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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117247
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#114147

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#116961
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#112578

1. The `MPESA` payment method needs a callback url where it does a
   `POST` request with the transaction details. Since the call comes
   from safaricom, CSRF will block those requests. This commit will
   disable CSRF checks on the callback endpoints which are expected to
   be called from an external service
2. Sometimes the `web.base.url` parameter is automatically set to http.
   But safaricom expects https for all the urls. So we need to ensure
   that the urls we send on `lipa_na_mpesa_register_urls` use https,
   otherwise the registration fails with an `invalid url` error.
   Additionally, I added the error message in case of error
4. In addition to the business short code we also need a till number for
   transactions. Since this is stable, I've added the till number as an
   extension of the business shortcode field and then parse it before
   usage. On master there is a new PR which will properly separate the
   fields

Task-[6045833](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project/1737/tasks/6045833)

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#254993

__
## Short functional explanation of the error
When we set the departure of an employee. The version is retrieved using the dismissal date. However, employees can work after their dismissal date, until their departure (in the case of a notice, for example). Therefore, the departure date should be chosen instead.

## Reproduction Steps
1. Go to Employees and create a new employee. In the Payroll tab, set a start date for their contract. Hit save.
2. This will create a version. You can see it top right, with the contract date. Click on the '+' next to it and set a date later.
3. Click on the cog in the top left and click End of Collaboration. Set an End Reason. Set the Dismissal Date to occur during the first version and the Departure Date to occur during the second version. Then, click Schedule.

### Expected behavior
The Departure tab should appear when clicking on the second version, top right.

### Unexpected behavior
The departure tab appears on the first version.

## Origin of the issue
To select the version on which the departure occurs, we use this line of code:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/be8b1bbad757fda27df579ce36cbc97324f58f62/addons/hr/models/hr_employee_departure.py#L117 `departure_date` should be used instead.

__
opw-6079675

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264667

* = hr_holidays

Before this commit, when displaying the IM status icon for employees on leave of companies the user does not have access to, we would not display the `fa-plane` icon or the "Back on" indicator.

Steps to reproduce:
- Create a new company X
- Create a new employee Y (with user) in company X
- With a user who does not have access to company X open the General channel member list -> no leave icon, open the avatar card -> no icon

This happens because since [1] the leave IM status icon is computed client side using the employee information, rather than computed on the `im_status` field itself.
This however causes problem in a multi-company context due to the field `employee_ids@ResUsers` having a field-level domain restricting to the requesting user's active companies.

This commit fixes the issue by fetching all of the user's employee_ids regardless of active company.

[1] https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/210189

task-6191367

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263024

# 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#262635
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#260138

Steps to reproduce
1. Enable "Batch Account Move Lines" in the Payroll settings.
2. Configure two employees' versions with an analytic distribution on the
   same analytic account but with different percentages (e.g. {acc: 50}
   for the first employee and {acc: 70} for the second).
3. Generate a payslip run containing both employees and validate it.

Issue
The generated account move aggregates the two payslips into a single
line whose analytic_distribution matches only the last employee being
processed; the other employee's percentage is silently lost.

`_get_existing_lines` decides whether an incoming line can merge into an
already accumulated one. When the incoming line has an analytic
distribution, the merge condition delegates to
`_check_partially_matching_accounts`:

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/e4a1326c7a8a74da7970aeaa9900c19d01634e31/hr_payroll_account/models/hr_payslip.py#L254-L271
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/e4a1326c7a8a74da7970aeaa9900c19d01634e31/hr_payroll_account/models/hr_payslip.py#L273-L283

That helper returns True as soon as any analytic account of the new
line appears anywhere in the existing line's distribution dict, without
comparing percentages. Two distributions such as {acc: 50} and
{acc: 70} share the same account, so the helper returns True, the
lines are merged, and whichever distribution ends up on the merged line
overwrites the other — the total amount is correct but the analytic
split is wrong.

The logic introduced in commit https://github.com/odoo-dev/enterprise/commit/e40a3166286a6bc546e9543b935233d2a110dc52 successfully addressed merging for rule-level distributions
with composite keys (e.g., {'13,7,12': 40}). However, that implementation is overly inclusive for employee-specific distributions.
It fails to differentiate between cases where the same analytic account is utilized across various employees but with different percentage allocations.
Because it only checks for an account overlap rather than a perfect distributional match, it incorrectly aggregates distinct financial dimensions into a single journal line

Solution
Compare the full analytic_distribution dict by strict equality. Lines
merge only when the distribution is identical (same keys AND same
percentages), keeping the batch feature anonymizing identically
configured employees while preserving one line per distinct
distribution.

opw-6102508

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#114156

# 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#263652
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#248236

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

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

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

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

opw-6103671

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117450
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#115085

### Issue before this commit:
In the Italian Annual VAT Report, the balance (base amount) for line VF25 displays incorrect values. Instead of computing the sum of the taxable bases for the passive operations, the report erroneously mixes tax amounts into the balance column.

### Steps to reproduce the issue:
1. Download Accounting and l10n_it
2. Go to Tax Report and visualize the Annual Tax Report (IT)
3. Go to VF VAT Report
4. See the VF25 is mixing taxes and balances

### Cause of the issue:
The root cause lies in the aggregation_formula definition for the tax_annual_report_line_VF25 record. The formula was incorrectly configured to aggregate the .tax expressions for lines VF1 to VF13 (VF1.tax + VF2.tax + ...) instead of their respective .balance expressions, while correctly using .balance for the remaining lines (VF17 to VF24).
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/878c08cf522a3278b4e6ff5f3d18444989e9998d/addons/l10n_it/data/tax_report/annual_report_sections/vf.xml#L286-L299

It's just a typo in this commit: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/164064/changes/f292ba119d6376dbfb3c1fac4960c9c56a74d938

### Reason to introduce the fix:
From documentation https://www.agenziaentrate.gov.it/portale/documents/20143/9602686/IVA_ANNUALE_2026_istr.pdf/2a42fb92-1b76-229a-d0f5-06069d79b514?t=1768504755711 : 

> Rigo VF25, colonna 1, va indicato il totale degli imponibili determinato sommando gli importi riportati ai righi da VF1 a VF23, colonna 1, diminuito dell’importo di cui al rigo VF24. In colonna 2 va indicato il totale delle imposte determinato sommando gli importi delle colonne 2 dei righi da VF1 a VF13.

opw-6172791

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264379

In Mexico, the basic salary must be calculated based on the total calendar days of the period. This ensures that both worked days and non-working days (e.g. Sundays) contribute equally to the total payment. This calculation also applies to the daily schedule, as the proportional daily wage must be divided equivalently across the hours of the day.

Current behavior:
When an employee has an unpaid leave, the basic salary is incorrectly prorated using only the registered days/hours.
Example: For a monthly wage of 30,000 MXN in a month with 22 scheduled days (21 attendances + 1 unpaid leave), the implicit daily rate becomes 1,363.63 (30,000 / 22). This leads to an incorrect basic salary of 28,636.36 MXN for the days worked. This also happens with unpaid leave for x hours, e.g., for 2 hours, the unpaid leave is calculated as 2 hours * (30,000 / (22 days * 8 hours)) = 340.90 MXN, which is incorrect.

Expected behavior:
The basic salary should be derived from the full period (e.g., 30 days for a month, 15 for a bi-weekly period).
Example: For a 30,000 MXN wage, the daily rate should be 1,000 MXN (30,000 / 30 days). If there is 1 unpaid leave, the basic salary should be 29,000 MXN (29 days * 1,000 MXN), regardless of the number of scheduled working days in the calendar. For unpaid leaves by hours, e.g., for 2 hours, the unpaid leave should be calculated as 2 hours * (30,000 / (30 days * 8 hours)) = 250.00 MXN.

To achieve this, the calculation of the days in the `_get_worked_day_lines` is:
* Adjust worked days/hours for out-of-contract entries where necessary, ensuring that rest days(Sundays) are included in the count.
* Get all worked hours in the lines.
* Calculate the number of days to pay based on the total hours and the hours per day.

### Case: payslip does not cover the complete pay period
Current behavior:
If a payslip is created for a partial period, the total amount is the full period wage.

Expected behavior:
The total amount should be pro-rated based on the days of the period. For example, if a payslip is created for 25 days(with a monthly schedule pay), the total amount should be the daily salary multiplied by 25 days.

To achieve this, `_compute_amount` is updated to calculate the wage based on the `l10n_mx_daily_salary`.

Changes on tests:
* Add:
  * `test_monthly_payslip_with_partial_leave`, `test_partial_payslip`, `test_partial_payslip_new_hire_month_31_days` and `test_partial_payslip_new_hire_month_28_days`.
  * `test_hourly_payslip_by_attendance` to validate when `Work Entry Source` is set to "attendance".
* Update:
  * `test_hourly_payslip`, `test_monthly_payslip` and `test_partial_payslip_new_hire` to align with the new calculation.
  * Adjust payslips dates to match the `schedule_pay` in `test_regular_payslip_subsidy` and `test_weekly_schedule_pay_no_code`
  * Fix a one-day difference in `TestMxEdiHrPayrollCommon`(16 days instead of 15 days for a bi-weekly schedule), and update the corresponding CFDI values.
* Refactor tests and add new helpers.

### Error on [warning issues generation][1] and [`_compute_is_wrong_duration`][2]

The warning: `"The duration of the payslip is not accurate according to the structure type."` appears with these custom periods for Mexican Payroll, although the period is correct:
* `10_days`
* `14_days`
* `bi-weekly`

Steps to replicate:
* Install `l10n_mx_hr_payroll` module.
* Switch to "INNOVACION VALOR Y DESARROLLO SA SA" company.
* Go to Employees and open "Cesar Osbaldo Cruz Solorzano".
* Click on "Payroll" tab, change the "Pay Schedule" to any option listed above, for example "Bi-weekly".
* Go to Payroll > Payslips > Payslips and create a new pay run.
* Select Salary Structure 'Mexico: Regular Pay', Pay Schedule 'Bi-weekly' and the Period '01/01/2026 -> 01/15/2026'.
* Click on "Continue", select Cesar and click on "Select".
* It appears the warning issue.

Problem:
The warning is raised because of `slip.date_from + slip._get_schedule_timedelta() != slip.date_to` condition, because `_get_schedule_timedelta` function calls [`self._schedule_timedelta(schedule, self.date_from)`][3] without the `country_code` argument.
In the Mexican Payroll [_schedule_timedelta is overriden][4] but it is necessary to call it with the country code to use the custom periods; similar to how the [`date_end` is computed][5].

Solution:
Call `_get_schedule_timedelta` passing the `country_code`

[1]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/1666ac87b6cb40e904210fecd159df3ac5b6b33a/hr_payroll/models/hr_payslip.py#L1367
[2]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/1666ac87b6cb40e904210fecd159df3ac5b6b33a/hr_payroll/models/hr_payslip.py#L1454
[3]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/1666ac87b6cb40e904210fecd159df3ac5b6b33a/hr_payroll/models/hr_payslip.py#L275
[4]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/1666ac87b6cb40e904210fecd159df3ac5b6b33a/l10n_mx_hr_payroll/models/hr_payslip.py#L58
[5]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/1666ac87b6cb40e904210fecd159df3ac5b6b33a/hr_payroll/models/hr_payslip_run.py#L211

target: 19.0
task-6073601

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#115044
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#112524

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264104
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#261680

# How to reproduce
- Create a Product with more than 256 variants
- Publish it to the website
- Go to the website and add a Product Carousel
- Set it to display newest products & hide variants

# The problem
Fewer than 16 products are displayed

# Cause
This issue was already adressed by this commit :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/195857

But because of limitations for specifically the "Newest Products" filter (cf. original commit message), the fix was only a workaround. Indeed, it increased the search limit to 256 before filtering out the variants, which caused problems when there was more than 256 variants.

But since then, big changes made in 19.0 has allowed us to implement a better fix : https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/e3b062e5d3820

# Proposed Solution
Since we can now pass the model in the options :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b5069328734e623c12b0de50a177d501f7f0c995/addons/website/models/website_snippet_filter.py#L90

We give "product.template" when the `hide_variants` option is enabled and we filter on products. This allows use to remove the whole workaround that needed increase the limit on product searchs then getting their templates.

A recent commit blocks passing "product.template" since it does not have a dedicated snippet filter : https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/257208/changes/8e264ae4ea6ae16bbd410ac384733ff8759938a6

But in the commit message, they mention that this targets snippet in single-record mode, which is not our case. So, we move the logic to only be applied for single-record filters

opw-6054059

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#260340

**Problem:**
In view Inventory valuation, generate entry doesn't work when 
multiple companies are selected. 

In the view only the main company matters. 
That means that even if multiple companies are selected, only the stock 
variation lines related to the main company selected are displayed
(which is expected).
But if you then click on 'generate entry' the account move lines created
will have wrong values (not matching the values appearing in the view)

**Steps to reproduce:**
- create 2 new companies (to have clean accounting)
- create a warehouse for both companies
- for both comp, in settings for the 'fiscal localization' set 
Package : Generic Chart of account, if not already set
(to have account journals).

From company 1 : 
- create a storable prod with avco perpetual category
- confirm PO for 2  @ 10, receive 
- bill only 1 @ 10

From company 2: 
- make sure the category is also perpetual average from this 
other company
- confirm PO for 2 @ 50, receive, don't bill

Notice how from the 'Inventory Valuation' view, rightfully,
only the main company matters (no matter what 
other comp are selected):
- If main comp is comp 1 there is stock variation lines
for amount of 10 (which is expected because we have 
20 in stock and only 10 in stock valuation account)
- If main comp is comp 2 there is stock variation lines
for amount of 100 (which is expected because we have 
100 in stock and only 0 in stock valuation account)

With comp 1 and 2 selected and comp 1 as main company: 
- click on 'Generate Entry'

**Current behavior:**
- both line have a balance of 110

**Expected behavior:**
- they should have a balance of 10 as we saw 
on the 'inventory valuation' view

**Cause of the issue:**
To generate the data from the 'inventory valuation' 
view, inside _get_report_data() we call stock_value() 
and stock_accounting_value() to compare values 
from inventory and value from accounting. 
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/dd84309df7fd39e9e97ed02d135d25b211085135/addons/stock_account/report/stock_valuation_report.py#L36-L37

stock_value() sums total_value() of each product in 
the valued accounts
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/dd84309df7fd39e9e97ed02d135d25b211085135/addons/stock_account/models/res_company.py#L90-L94
Whereas stock_acounting_value(), sums the balance 
of each account move line of each valuation account
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/dd84309df7fd39e9e97ed02d135d25b211085135/addons/stock_account/models/res_company.py#L112-L114
All of this is related to the main company because 
we call _get_report_data() with context 'allowed_company_ids' 
set to only the main company
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/dd84309df7fd39e9e97ed02d135d25b211085135/addons/stock_account/report/stock_valuation_report.py#L13

But when we click on generate entry, 
_get_stock_valuation_account_vals() is called with no context
modification to 'allowed_company_ids' so when we call 
stock_value(),
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/dd84309df7fd39e9e97ed02d135d25b211085135/addons/stock_account/models/res_company.py#L238-L239
total_value will be based on both company
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/dd84309df7fd39e9e97ed02d135d25b211085135/addons/stock_account/models/res_company.py#L92

Note that stock_accounting_value() is still rightfully based only 
on main company because we use self.id in the domain
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/dd84309df7fd39e9e97ed02d135d25b211085135/addons/stock_account/models/res_company.py#L105-L108

opw-6168699

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263946
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262776

Steps to reproduce
1. In a French company with Intrastat enabled, set up a product whose commodity code has a CN supplementary unit (e.g. 8802 30 00, "p/st") and set `intrastat_supplementary_unit_amount` on it.
2. Post EU customer invoices for that product.
3. Export the DEBWEB2 XML from the Intrastat report.

Issue
The FR export collapses engine rows a second time in `_group_items`, because the DEBWEB2 format groups more aggressively than the SQL. The aggregator only declares `value` and `weight`: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/6ae5d3df6e9305416e4d6f74259cd01753025f42/l10n_fr_intrastat/models/account_intrastat_report.py#L308-L313 Items are then rebuilt as `dict(zip(grouping_key, key_tuple)) | grouped_item_values`. `SU_code` survives (it is in the grouping key), but the numeric `supplementary_units` is in neither side and is silently dropped as soon as two engine rows merge. The template then skips the element because of its `t-if="item.get('supplementary_units')"` guard: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/6ae5d3df6e9305416e4d6f74259cd01753025f42/l10n_fr_intrastat/data/intrastat_export.xml#L61

opw-6139657

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117357
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117033

### Steps to reproduce:

- Install delivery_envia
- Website > Configuration > eCommerce > Delivery Methods > Envia
- Enable the delivery method, sync the carrier and Publish it
- With a portal user > Shop > Add any product to your cart > Checkout
- Register an address a valid 'Chile' address and confirm say: 
    'street and Number': Avenida Providencia 1432, Depto 402
    'city': Santiago 'zip': 8320000
    'country': Chile  'state': Metropolitana
#### > Envia Error: Invalid Option - String is too long at #->properties:destination

### Cause of the issue:

The problem is caused by the fact that Envia's api expects a 2-3 digits to represent state codes: https://docs.envia.com/reference/state-by-code
The mapping from Odoo's code state representation to envia's one is expected ot be performed by this mapping:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/75cba6d5a88ebc4e0f35040a173ac1c443638daf/delivery_envia/models/envia_request.py#L27-L43 when the address is converted here:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/75cba6d5a88ebc4e0f35040a173ac1c443638daf/delivery_envia/models/envia_request.py#L535-L542 That being said, the `Chile`'s code states of have been changed in [6694a3942c58ff1a56c9e4b36edbe126dd1e66f8](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/6694a3942c58ff1a56c9e4b36edbe126dd1e66f8) to match the official Iso but not in the Envia's mapping leading a failling match keeping the 4 charracter long `CL-RM` of the `Metropolitan` state provided in to the Envia's api as address data.

opw-6210007

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117280

Steps to reproduce:
===================
1. Go to Event, open an event page
2. Click "Register" & Select a ticket and confirm
3. Switch to edit mode

=> crash.

Cause:
======
The cleanup callback called `hide()` followed immediately by `dispose()`.
Bootstrap's `hide()` is asynchronous — it registers a `transitionend`
callback that fires `_hideModal()` after the CSS transition. `dispose()`
nullifies `this._element` synchronously via `BaseComponent`, so when the
`transitionend` fires and `_hideModal()` tries to access
`this._element.style`, it crashes with:

  TypeError: Cannot read properties of null (reading 'style')

This happened when switching to edit mode while the event registration
modal was open: the `public.interactions` service stopped the interaction,
triggering the cleanup.

Solution:
=========
Listen for `hidden.bs.modal` (fired at the end of `_hideModal`)
and only `dispose()` inside that handler, ensuring `_element` is still
valid throughout the transition.

task-6133395

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264365

Issue:
---
Due to this issue, in multi-company environment, wrong fiscal position might be assigned to the order, leading to `incompatible companies` error.

Steps to reproduce:
1- On multi-company setup, assign a website to the second company.
2- Configure pickup method for second company.
3- Configure fiscal positions for both companies.
4- Setup auto invoice for second company.
5- Using public user, add a product to cart and checkout.
6- Use pickup method, and pay.

The order is not confirmed. If you enable debug mode after payment, it will show an `incompatible companies` error.

Cause:
---
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/43f5ceadbc1f7df9898c327bf65bffdbe9860c1c/addons/account/models/partner.py#L247-L279 `_get_fiscal_position` is using environment company to compute the fiscal position.

However, `_compute_fiscal_position_id` causing the issue here is triggered inside `report_saleorder` template with user set as odoobot when trying to to send the confirmation.

As a result, the odoobot company's fiscal position will be used causing this issue.

Fix:
---
We should ensure company from sale order is used by setting it as env company.

opw-6186296

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264123

Steps to reproduce
1. Enable "Batch Account Move Lines" in the Payroll settings.
2. Configure two employees' versions with an analytic distribution on the
   same analytic account but with different percentages (e.g. {acc: 50}
   for the first employee and {acc: 70} for the second).
3. Generate a payslip run containing both employees and validate it.

Issue
The generated account move aggregates the two payslips into a single
line whose analytic_distribution matches only the last employee being
processed; the other employee's percentage is silently lost.

`_get_existing_lines` decides whether an incoming line can merge into an
already accumulated one. When the incoming line has an analytic
distribution, the merge condition delegates to
`_check_partially_matching_accounts`:

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/e4a1326c7a8a74da7970aeaa9900c19d01634e31/hr_payroll_account/models/hr_payslip.py#L254-L271
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/e4a1326c7a8a74da7970aeaa9900c19d01634e31/hr_payroll_account/models/hr_payslip.py#L273-L283

That helper returns True as soon as any analytic account of the new
line appears anywhere in the existing line's distribution dict, without
comparing percentages. Two distributions such as {acc: 50} and
{acc: 70} share the same account, so the helper returns True, the
lines are merged, and whichever distribution ends up on the merged line
overwrites the other — the total amount is correct but the analytic
split is wrong.

The logic introduced in commit https://github.com/odoo-dev/enterprise/commit/e40a3166286a6bc546e9543b935233d2a110dc52 successfully addressed merging for rule-level distributions
with composite keys (e.g., {'13,7,12': 40}). However, that implementation is overly inclusive for employee-specific distributions.
It fails to differentiate between cases where the same analytic account is utilized across various employees but with different percentage allocations.
Because it only checks for an account overlap rather than a perfect distributional match, it incorrectly aggregates distinct financial dimensions into a single journal line

Solution
Compare the full analytic_distribution dict by strict equality. Lines
merge only when the distribution is identical (same keys AND same
percentages), keeping the batch feature anonymizing identically
configured employees while preserving one line per distinct
distribution.

opw-6102508

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#114156

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

### Steps to reproduce:

**Issue 1:**
- Create a list with multiple items and leave the last item empty.
- Press Ctrl + A to select all content.
- Apply a text color from the toolbar.
- The list marker of the last item does not receive the color.

**Issue 2:**
- Create a list and type some text.
- Press Ctrl+A to select all.
- Apply a font size via the font-size input (inline style=`font-size: ...`).
- Then apply a font size via the font-size dropdown (class-based).
- Font size from the dropdown is not applied.

**Issue 3:**
- Create a list item and type some text.
- Convert the text into a link.
- Copy the link.
- Press Enter and paste the link.
- Select the entire list using the mouse.
- Apply font size & observe that font size is not applied to some list items.

**Issue 4:**
- Go to Todo and create a list.
- Select all items (Ctrl + A).
- Apply a background color class from the toolbar.
- Apply a font color using inline styling.
- Observe that the font color is not visible.

### Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

- Full-selection detection relied on Range.isPointInRange() checks on list item leaf nodes. When a list item ended with a trailing empty line, the selection often stopped on the `<li>` element and did not include the `<br>` placeholder. As a result, such list items were not considered fully selected when applying text color, and their markers remained unstyled.
- Applying a font-size class on a fully-selected list item could leave existing inline font-size on list item, so new class didn’t take effect.
- Creating links inside list items & repeated copy-paste operations left empty text nodes (feff cleanup). Manual selection doesn't include these nodes, `areNodeContentsFullySelected` reports that list item is not fully selected. As a result, some list items were not considered fully selected, and font size was not applied.
- Background color `(bg-*)` classes also define a color property. When a font color is applied, the color is set on the `<li>`, but the nested `font.bg-*` element’s color takes precedence, causing the applied font color to be overridden.

### Desired behavior after PR is merged:

- List items with trailing empty line are now treated as fully selected, even when selection ends before the `<br>` placeholder.
- Clear any existing font-size styles on the list item before applying the new font-size class, so the dropdown font size applies correctly.
- Empty text nodes are removed before applying font size, ensuring full list item selection and consistent font-size application.
- When a list item (li) has a text color (inline style or text-* class), and nested font element has only a background color class then font element now inherits the color from the li.

task - 5454639

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264586
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#241827

# 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#263652
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#248236

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

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

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

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

opw-5507063

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#116824
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#112522

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#114212
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#98571

Steps to reproduce
1. In a French company with Intrastat enabled, set up a product whose commodity code has a CN supplementary unit (e.g. 8802 30 00, "p/st") and set `intrastat_supplementary_unit_amount` on it.
2. Post EU customer invoices for that product.
3. Export the DEBWEB2 XML from the Intrastat report.

Issue
The FR export collapses engine rows a second time in `_group_items`, because the DEBWEB2 format groups more aggressively than the SQL. The aggregator only declares `value` and `weight`: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/6ae5d3df6e9305416e4d6f74259cd01753025f42/l10n_fr_intrastat/models/account_intrastat_report.py#L308-L313 Items are then rebuilt as `dict(zip(grouping_key, key_tuple)) | grouped_item_values`. `SU_code` survives (it is in the grouping key), but the numeric `supplementary_units` is in neither side and is silently dropped as soon as two engine rows merge. The template then skips the element because of its `t-if="item.get('supplementary_units')"` guard: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/6ae5d3df6e9305416e4d6f74259cd01753025f42/l10n_fr_intrastat/data/intrastat_export.xml#L61

opw-6139657

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117357
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117033

Steps to reproduce:
===================
1. Go to Event, open an event page
2. Click "Register" & Select a ticket and confirm
3. Switch to edit mode

=> crash.

Cause:
======
The cleanup callback called `hide()` followed immediately by `dispose()`.
Bootstrap's `hide()` is asynchronous — it registers a `transitionend`
callback that fires `_hideModal()` after the CSS transition. `dispose()`
nullifies `this._element` synchronously via `BaseComponent`, so when the
`transitionend` fires and `_hideModal()` tries to access
`this._element.style`, it crashes with:

  TypeError: Cannot read properties of null (reading 'style')

This happened when switching to edit mode while the event registration
modal was open: the `public.interactions` service stopped the interaction,
triggering the cleanup.

Solution:
=========
Listen for `hidden.bs.modal` (fired at the end of `_hideModal`)
and only `dispose()` inside that handler, ensuring `_element` is still
valid throughout the transition.

task-6133395

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264365

Issue:
---
Due to this issue, in multi-company environment, wrong fiscal position might be assigned to the order, leading to `incompatible companies` error.

Steps to reproduce:
1- On multi-company setup, assign a website to the second company.
2- Configure pickup method for second company.
3- Configure fiscal positions for both companies.
4- Setup auto invoice for second company.
5- Using public user, add a product to cart and checkout.
6- Use pickup method, and pay.

The order is not confirmed. If you enable debug mode after payment, it will show an `incompatible companies` error.

Cause:
---
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/43f5ceadbc1f7df9898c327bf65bffdbe9860c1c/addons/account/models/partner.py#L247-L279 `_get_fiscal_position` is using environment company to compute the fiscal position.

However, `_compute_fiscal_position_id` causing the issue here is triggered inside `report_saleorder` template with user set as odoobot when trying to to send the confirmation.

As a result, the odoobot company's fiscal position will be used causing this issue.

Fix:
---
We should ensure company from sale order is used by setting it as env company.

opw-6186296

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264123

Steps to reproduce
1. Enable "Batch Account Move Lines" in the Payroll settings.
2. Configure two employees' versions with an analytic distribution on the
   same analytic account but with different percentages (e.g. {acc: 50}
   for the first employee and {acc: 70} for the second).
3. Generate a payslip run containing both employees and validate it.

Issue
The generated account move aggregates the two payslips into a single
line whose analytic_distribution matches only the last employee being
processed; the other employee's percentage is silently lost.

`_get_existing_lines` decides whether an incoming line can merge into an
already accumulated one. When the incoming line has an analytic
distribution, the merge condition delegates to
`_check_partially_matching_accounts`:

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/e4a1326c7a8a74da7970aeaa9900c19d01634e31/hr_payroll_account/models/hr_payslip.py#L254-L271
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/e4a1326c7a8a74da7970aeaa9900c19d01634e31/hr_payroll_account/models/hr_payslip.py#L273-L283

That helper returns True as soon as any analytic account of the new
line appears anywhere in the existing line's distribution dict, without
comparing percentages. Two distributions such as {acc: 50} and
{acc: 70} share the same account, so the helper returns True, the
lines are merged, and whichever distribution ends up on the merged line
overwrites the other — the total amount is correct but the analytic
split is wrong.

The logic introduced in commit https://github.com/odoo-dev/enterprise/commit/e40a3166286a6bc546e9543b935233d2a110dc52 successfully addressed merging for rule-level distributions
with composite keys (e.g., {'13,7,12': 40}). However, that implementation is overly inclusive for employee-specific distributions.
It fails to differentiate between cases where the same analytic account is utilized across various employees but with different percentage allocations.
Because it only checks for an account overlap rather than a perfect distributional match, it incorrectly aggregates distinct financial dimensions into a single journal line

Solution
Compare the full analytic_distribution dict by strict equality. Lines
merge only when the distribution is identical (same keys AND same
percentages), keeping the batch feature anonymizing identically
configured employees while preserving one line per distinct
distribution.

opw-6102508

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#114156

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

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

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

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

opw-6103671

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117450
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#115085

### Issue before this commit:
In the Italian Annual VAT Report, the balance (base amount) for line VF25 displays incorrect values. Instead of computing the sum of the taxable bases for the passive operations, the report erroneously mixes tax amounts into the balance column.

### Steps to reproduce the issue:
1. Download Accounting and l10n_it
2. Go to Tax Report and visualize the Annual Tax Report (IT)
3. Go to VF VAT Report
4. See the VF25 is mixing taxes and balances

### Cause of the issue:
The root cause lies in the aggregation_formula definition for the tax_annual_report_line_VF25 record. The formula was incorrectly configured to aggregate the .tax expressions for lines VF1 to VF13 (VF1.tax + VF2.tax + ...) instead of their respective .balance expressions, while correctly using .balance for the remaining lines (VF17 to VF24).
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/878c08cf522a3278b4e6ff5f3d18444989e9998d/addons/l10n_it/data/tax_report/annual_report_sections/vf.xml#L286-L299

It's just a typo in this commit: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/164064/changes/f292ba119d6376dbfb3c1fac4960c9c56a74d938

### Reason to introduce the fix:
From documentation https://www.agenziaentrate.gov.it/portale/documents/20143/9602686/IVA_ANNUALE_2026_istr.pdf/2a42fb92-1b76-229a-d0f5-06069d79b514?t=1768504755711 : 

> Rigo VF25, colonna 1, va indicato il totale degli imponibili determinato sommando gli importi riportati ai righi da VF1 a VF23, colonna 1, diminuito dell’importo di cui al rigo VF24. In colonna 2 va indicato il totale delle imposte determinato sommando gli importi delle colonne 2 dei righi da VF1 a VF13.

opw-6172791

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264379

**Steps to Reproduce:**
- Start a new meeting (Host Tab).
- Duplicate the tab or open the same meeting URL in another tab (remote tab).
- In the remote tab, open the call menu (dropdown).
- From the host tab, disconnect/end the call.
- Crashes on Remote Tab.

**Current behavior before PR:**
Before this PR, duplicating a meeting tab could leave the remote tab 
with a stale call action dropdown after the host ended the call. Since 
some action properties and handlers still assumed that selfSession 
and channel were always available, interacting with the dropdown could 
crash with errors.

**Desired behavior after PR is merged:**
After this PR, call action labels/classes defensively tolerate 
missing selfSession or channel references, and stale click handlers 
gracefully no-op when the call disappears mid-interaction. This prevents
remote tab crashes during call teardown while preserving the existing UI 
behavior.

task-[6191740](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project/1519/tasks/6191740)

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

*:website, website_payment

> Commit 1:

[FIX] web_editor: prevent infinite bounce loop when clicking undo
Steps to reproduce:
1. Click on a snippet without dragging it.
2. Notice that the "Drag building blocks here" section starts bouncing.
3. Observe that a step is added to the history (Undo becomes available).
4. Click on Undo button.

Issue:
1. The `o_catch_attention class` is repeatedly added and removed, creating unnecessary history steps in the editor.
2. No actual changes occur in the wrap area, yet the editor records history steps.
3. This leads to an infinite bounce loop when using Undo/Redo.

Expected behavior:
1. The Undo button should not be activated.
2. Infinite bouncing should not occur.

This PR prevents unnecessary history steps by disabling history tracking during this phase using `observerUnactive` and `observerActive`. This ensures that the editor does not record redundant changes, preventing infinite bounce loops.
 
 
 > Commit 2:
 
 [FIX] website_payment: fix donation amount not updating issue
 Steps to Reproduce:
1. Go to Website → Add a Donation snippet.
2. Enter a custom amount and click "Donate". You will be redirected to the donation/pay page.
3. Use the browser's back button to return to the previous page.
4. Change the amount in the custom amount field.
5. Click "Donate" again.
- The old amount is still used instead of the new one.

Expected Behavior:
The donation amount should update correctly when changed.

The issue occurs because clicking the "Donate Now" button appends a hidden value to the form snippet, which is then used in payment_form. When navigating back and selecting "Donate Now" again, a duplicate hidden value is added instead of replacing the previous one. This PR ensures that if a value already exists, it is replaced instead of being
appended, resolving the issue.


> Commit 3:

[FIX] web_editor: fix dropdown options value

Steps to reproduce:
1. Go to the website and drag and drop the form snippet.
2. Change the action to 'Subscribe to Newsletter'.
3. Click on multi-checkbox field to view its options.

- Even after selecting an option, it remains in the dropdown, allowing multiple selections of the same option.

Expected behaviour:
- Once an option is selected, it should be removed from the dropdown.

Solution:
This PR removes the count from the display name, ensuring correct form behavior.

task-4583314

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#234513
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#203454

Steps to reproduce
-----
- Modules: Sale, Purchase, Mrp, Accounting
- Enable automatic accounting & anglo-saxon valuation
- Create an AVCO Product category (AVCO automatic valuation)
- Create a Kit product storable & AVCO
    - Kit bom
    - Comp as a component (storable & AVCO)
- Settings > Decimal Accuracy > Product Price > set to 4 digits
- Purchase 3 units of Comp at 3.3333 piece & validate reception
- Make 2 sales for 1 unit of Comp each & validate both deliveries
- Create a SO for 1 Kit and 1 Comp & confirm
- Create & confirm invoice
- Go to the delivery, force quantity on the component and try to validate delivery

> Error message: "You are trying to reconcile some entries that are already reconciled."

/!\ Fun(?) fact: this error doesn't occur if the order of the moves is inverted.

Cause
-----
When the purchase delivery is validated, a stock valuation layer is created for 3 units with a value of 10. As they are sold individually, these 3 units generate a valuation layer for 3.33 per unit summing to 9.99.

When we validate the last delivery, the 0.01 difference is detected and an adjustment is made on the valuation layer in `_prepare_out_svl_vals`.

However this adjustment is made for the product when the invoice line concerns the kit. As a result, the first reconciliation fails and the line is added to the list to be reconciled later.

Then, when handling the line for COMP2, it will successfully reconcile the lines while it is still in the pool to be reconciled, resulting in an error when attempting to reconcile it later.

This is caused by `_stock_account_anglo_saxon_reconcile_valuation` where the `product_stock_moves` only contains the kit move when called with the kit product as argument, but it contains both moves when called with the component itself as argument. This leads to the same AML being reconciled twice.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f0b9f4c234cd0101f5cb259e58620e1cf65bb2b7/addons/stock_account/models/account_move.py#L222-L225

-----
Ticket:
opw-5722072

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263418
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#258013

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Accounting > Configuration > Settings > Default Accounts > Product Accounts
- Change the default expense account (and income account)
- Create a new product category
- category still proposed the old accounts

Affected versions: from 18.2 till 19.2

**Cause:**
`ir.default` for `product.category` (`property_account_expense_categ_id` and `property_account_income_categ_id`) was not updated when `res.company.expense_account_id` / `income_account_id` changed, so new categories kept using stale defaults.

and in 19.0
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/894281f2a3e313fc239529572b5cc8c06a3511f7/addons/account/models/company.py#L490
and
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/894281f2a3e313fc239529572b5cc8c06a3511f7/addons/account/models/company.py#L753
calls
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/894281f2a3e313fc239529572b5cc8c06a3511f7/addons/account/models/company.py#L1136-L1139

However, when stock_account is installed

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/894281f2a3e313fc239529572b5cc8c06a3511f7/addons/stock_account/models/res_company.py#L361-L366

this gets called, without calling super, that's why it didn't work although the fix is there, we will need to adapt another fix in 19.0+

**Solution:**
Call `_set_category_defaults()` in `res.company.write()` so `ir.default` stays aligned with the company's current product default accounts.

opw-6145491

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#261594

### Issue before this commit:
In the Italian Annual VAT Report, the balance (base amount) for line VF25 displays incorrect values. Instead of computing the sum of the taxable bases for the passive operations, the report erroneously mixes tax amounts into the balance column.

### Steps to reproduce the issue:
1. Download Accounting and l10n_it
2. Go to Tax Report and visualize the Annual Tax Report (IT)
3. Go to VF VAT Report
4. See the VF25 is mixing taxes and balances

### Cause of the issue:
The root cause lies in the aggregation_formula definition for the tax_annual_report_line_VF25 record. The formula was incorrectly configured to aggregate the .tax expressions for lines VF1 to VF13 (VF1.tax + VF2.tax + ...) instead of their respective .balance expressions, while correctly using .balance for the remaining lines (VF17 to VF24).
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/878c08cf522a3278b4e6ff5f3d18444989e9998d/addons/l10n_it/data/tax_report/annual_report_sections/vf.xml#L286-L299

It's just a typo in this commit: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/164064/changes/f292ba119d6376dbfb3c1fac4960c9c56a74d938

### Reason to introduce the fix:
From documentation https://www.agenziaentrate.gov.it/portale/documents/20143/9602686/IVA_ANNUALE_2026_istr.pdf/2a42fb92-1b76-229a-d0f5-06069d79b514?t=1768504755711 : 

> Rigo VF25, colonna 1, va indicato il totale degli imponibili determinato sommando gli importi riportati ai righi da VF1 a VF23, colonna 1, diminuito dell’importo di cui al rigo VF24. In colonna 2 va indicato il totale delle imposte determinato sommando gli importi delle colonne 2 dei righi da VF1 a VF13.

opw-6172791

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264379

## **Issue**

When a cash basis tax is configured with a payable/receivable
transition account, tax journal items are generated on that account
without a due date.

Since payable/receivable accounts require a due date on journal
items, this leads to a validation error during move creation:

"Any journal item on a payable account must have a due date and vice versa."

## **Steps to reproduce:**

1. Install the Accounting and Inter-Company modules.
2. Create an additional company so that there are a total of two companies, then switch to Company 1.
3. Create a product with a price and assign a tax to it.
4. Navigate to Accounting → Configuration → Settings and enable Cash Basis accounting.
5. Go to Accounting → Configuration → Taxes and open the purchase tax (or the tax assigned to the product).
6. In the Tax Computation section, ensure that Group of Taxes is not selected.
7. Under the Advanced Options tab, set Tax Exigibility to Based on Payment.
8. Set the Cash Basis Transition Account to a payable account.
9. Open Company Settings, select Company 1, go to the Inter-Company Transactions section, and enable Synchronize invoices/bills.
10. Switch to Company 2 and create an invoice using the same product. Select the contact that is the partner of Company 1.
11. Confirm the invoice.

The following error is raised:

"Any journal item on a payable account must have a due date and vice versa."

## **With This Commit:**
Added a domain on the Cash Basis Transition Account field to prevent
users from selecting payable or receivable accounts, avoiding invalid
configurations and runtime validation errors.

opw-6189615

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263792

this pr fixes 3 bug, as all are closely related.

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

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

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

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

 Allow product with 1 attr which is `is_custom` to be    configurable in configs other than kiosk: correct fix for [commit](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/5155c77a03ed2ff6c914eac41cc81ccb34b1f3c7)
  Step to reproduce 
  - have attributes A
  - A has only 1 attribute value with is_custom = True
  - use it on a product and make it available in POS
  - start pos and open that product

  Observation:
  - we do not get option to select add text for A

  Cause:
  - in pos, we consider product to be configurable only it has more than 1
  attributes, which misses is_custom attr

  Fix:
  - we backport [commit](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/5155c77a03ed2ff6c914eac41cc81ccb34b1f3c7) and also considers its side effect by introducing
  `isProductConfigurable` for pos_self_order, which will still avoid
  `is_custom` attrs for kiosk
  
    Empty page is displayed if product has only `is_custom` attribute value
    and other attribute with type other then 'no_variant' for combo item

   Step to reproduce
  - have attributes A and B
  - A has only 1 attribute value with is_custom = True
  - B has two values with type "always"
  - use it on a product and add that product in combo item and make it available
    in Kisok
  - start kiosk and open that combo and select that product

  Observation:
  - we do not get option to select

  Cause:
  - `availableAttributeValue` only show `no_variant` and non `is_custom` attribute
     values in attributeSelection component.

  Fix:
  - before mounting Attributeselection component, we check if product has required
    attribute or not.


  [1] https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/5155c77a03ed2ff6c914eac41cc81ccb34b1f3c7

opw-6100965

[ADD] l10n_om_hr_payroll: base setup for Oman payroll localization
[ADD] l10n_om_hr_payroll: accrual plan, SPF, Overtime, & EOS salary rules

Introduce the foundational setup for the Oman payroll localization based on Oman's Labor Law. This serves as the base for subsequent enhancements and related tasks.
The setup includes demo data, a standard working schedule, and an Omani salary structure with standard and specific rules aligned with local requirements.

The goal of this change is to establish an initial framework for the Omani localization, enabling consistent development and functional testing. Providing demo data for the company and employees facilitates immediate use and demonstration of payroll features, while the defined 9–5 working schedule (Sunday–Thursday, Asia/Oman timezone) reflects local business practices.

Technical summary:
- **Added demo company:** “My Omani Company”.
- **Added demo employees:** Linked to the company with localized education and contract data.
- **Defined standard working schedule:** (9:00–17:00, split morning/afternoon, Sunday–Thursday, Asia/Oman timezone).
- **Introduced salary structure “Oman: Monthly Pay”:** Includes standard salary rules and the following additions:
    - **Bonus:** Added as an Other Input.
    - **Other Allowance:** Salary input at employee level with a corresponding rule under category “Allowances”.
    - **Total Wage:** New parent category grouping “Allowances” and “Basic Salary”.
    - **Expenses Reimbursement:** Added as an Other Input.
    - **Renamed “Taxable Salary” to “Gross”:** To align with local terminology.
- **Social Protection Fund (SPF):** Added fields and logic for Employee and Employer contributions covering Old Age, Disability and Death , Unemployment, Work Injury, Sick Leave, and Maternity.
- **End of Service (EOS):** Introduced an EOS eligibility toggle on the employee record and a "Provision Payout" salary rule category.
- **Leave Accrual:** Added an "Oman Employee Plan" with a monthly accrual of and annual sick leaves.
- **Overtime Rules:** Defined rules for Daytime, Nighttime, and Rest Day overtime within the attendance and work entry.

task-5189116
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

**Container, Mixin & Generation**
* 281_xx is now the single entry point for all 281.xx reports.
* Introduced a shared mixin (`l10n_be.281.mixin`) to centralize common logic (employee validation, payslip filtering) and enforce a standard structure across all 281.xx forms.
* Child reports (281.10, 281.45) are systematically created and linked to the container.
* Forms are only generated for employees who require them (e.g., skipping 281.45 if the employee has no IP).
* XML generation is centralized at the container level: subreports provide data, while the container defines header-level information.
* Record names are adapted to include the year and a suffix sequence (e.g., `YEAR_281_suffix`).

**UI & View Simplification**
* Removed dedicated 281.10 and 281.45 form views, consolidating them into a unified container using tabs instead of smart buttons.
* Updated list view to display the year as the first column, and expose reference, form types, sending type, treatment type, and state.
* Introduced a shared employee declaration list view used across all 281 report types.

**Sequence, Error Handling & Finalization**
* The container holds the state (Draft, Error, Ready, Done). Draft state allows generating test XML; Ready state corresponds to final XML.
* Validation errors from subreports are aggregated and set the container to an "Error" state, blocking the XML generation.
* Confirmation wizard sets the final Belcotax reference, triggers the PDF generation, and sends the documents to the employees.

Task: 5911065

*=l10n_eu_oss_reports

This commit introduces the VAT Control Statement report (Kontrolný výkaz DPH)
as required by the Slovak Financial Administration.

The report covers all eight sections of the KVDPH:
- A.1: standard issued invoices to registered entities
- A.2: domestic reverse-charge sales (§69) with commodity codes
- B.1: reverse-charge purchases (EU acquisitions, triangular, imports)
- B.2: standard domestic purchases with VAT deduction
- B.3.1/B.3.2: simplified invoices (split by €3,000 threshold)
- C.1/C.2: corrections to issued/received supplies (credit & debit notes)
- D.1/D.2: e-KASA aggregates and other supplies (manual entry)

Each section uses a custom SQL engine that handles grouping by move,
partner, tax rate, and commodity tag depending on the section context.
Sections A.2 and C.1 resolve product commodity codes (TK) and goods
types (TD) from account tags defined in XML data.

Also adds:
- XML export following the KVDPH_2025 XSD schema
- `l10n_sk_is_bad_debt` field on `account.move` for bad debt flagging
- `l10n_sk_uom` selection on account.move.line for KVDPH unit of measure
- product tag data for 54 commodity codes and 2 goods types
- views to expose the new fields on invoices, journal items and products
- Added dedicated return type and submission wizard with direct XML download

Documentation: https://www.financnasprava.sk/sk/podnikatelia/dane/dan-z-pridanej-hodnoty/kontrolny-vykaz-dph

Related: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/241860
Related: https://github.com/odoo/upgrade/pull/9102

task-5213902

Marketplace orders with discounted tax-exclusive lines could not match the
platform total: Odoo accumulated a small rounding residue vs Shopee's
total_amount / Lazada's order price.

sale_shopee
-----------
- Use model_discounted_price as price_unit (discount=0) instead of a
  percentage discount.
- Rename _recompute_subtotal to _compute_subtotal to derive tax-exclusive
  subtotals from tax-inclusive totals (aligned with sale_lazada).
- Add _compute_reconciled_line_specs: price-include taxes keep the discounted
  unit price; tax-exclusive taxes use the nominal rounded tax-exclusive unit.
- In _create_order_from_data, append a tax-free "Shopee Amount Adjustment"
  line for any residue vs Shopee total_amount.
- Add a dedicated shipping line with fiscal-position-mapped taxes.
- Structure SO line descriptions (SKU, promotion, original price) via
  _build_item_description.
- Consolidate tests with build_order_mock(**extra); tax fixtures use an
  explicit tax group where required (Odoo 19+).

sale_lazada
-----------
- Port the same reconciliation model: reconciled line specs, discount=0 with
  discounted unit from paid_price, shipping line from shipping_fee, order-level
  tax-free "Lazada Amount Adjustment" vs order price.
- Group by SKU: _build_item_description (SKU, voucher, original price);
  skip all-canceled SKU buckets.
- Tests: build_order_mock(), same tax fixture pattern as sale_shopee.

task-6112062

Steps to reproduce
1. In a French company with Intrastat enabled, set up a product whose commodity code has a CN supplementary unit (e.g. 8802 30 00, "p/st") and set `intrastat_supplementary_unit_amount` on it.
2. Post EU customer invoices for that product.
3. Export the DEBWEB2 XML from the Intrastat report.

Issue
The FR export collapses engine rows a second time in `_group_items`, because the DEBWEB2 format groups more aggressively than the SQL. The aggregator only declares `value` and `weight`: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/6ae5d3df6e9305416e4d6f74259cd01753025f42/l10n_fr_intrastat/models/account_intrastat_report.py#L308-L313 Items are then rebuilt as `dict(zip(grouping_key, key_tuple)) | grouped_item_values`. `SU_code` survives (it is in the grouping key), but the numeric `supplementary_units` is in neither side and is silently dropped as soon as two engine rows merge. The template then skips the element because of its `t-if="item.get('supplementary_units')"` guard: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/6ae5d3df6e9305416e4d6f74259cd01753025f42/l10n_fr_intrastat/data/intrastat_export.xml#L61

opw-6139657

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117357
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117033

Implement the Belgian Registered Cash Register (Caisse Enregistreuse Certifiée) v2 specification as required by FPS Finance for certified POS restaurant systems.

The implementation is split into a core module and five bridge modules:

l10n_be_pos_blackbox (main module):
- FDM (Fiscal Data Module) communication layer that signs every fiscal
  event by sending a structured message to the blackbox device and
  receiving a hash + VSC counter in return.
  M110 (sale), M111 (refund), M112 (partial refund), M121 (order),
  M122 (cost-centre change), M123 (pre-bill), M130 (money in/out),
  M131 (drawer open), M140/M141 (work in/out), M150 (invoice),
  M160 (copy), M180/M181 (X/Z turnover report), M182/M183 (user X/Z
  report), UC230 (sale correction).
  M160 (copy), M180/M181 (X/Z turnover report), M182/M183 (user X/Z
  report), UC230 (sale correction).
- Input generator that encodes all line-level fiscal data (PLU hash,
  VAT groups, price rounding, grouping IDs) according to the spec.
- Fiscal receipt template (XML) that renders the blackbox hash,
  VSC counter, POS system identifier, and event sequence number on
  every printed receipt.
- X/Z daily report views with fiscal totals per VAT category.
- Training-mode support: activates the FDM training flag so the
  device does not count test transactions.
- Inspect popup (debug) for examining raw FDM messages.
- Error/warning popup system with traceback messages from the device.
- LocalStorage queue to replay pending mutations after a network
  outage.
- pos_config / pos_session overrides: enforce blackbox constraints
  (only EUR, no rounding, mandatory restaurant mode, etc.),
  manage device pairing, and accumulate per-session fiscal counters.
- Extensive unit-test suite: >6 000 lines covering the input
  generator's grouping-ID logic, price-consistency rules, and every
  mutation type against golden JSON fixtures.
- Browser tour tests (oracle + regression tours).

l10n_be_pos_blackbox_hr:
- Clock-in / clock-out flows for employees trigger M140/M141 work
  in/out mutations; employee INSZ/NISS number is required and stored
  on hr.employee; pos_session accumulates per-employee work records.

l10n_be_pos_blackbox_loyalty:
- Gift-card and discount reward lines are mapped to the correct MPV
  fiscal codes (UC260/UC261); loyalty products are flagged so the
  input generator can calculate their contribution to the signed
  total correctly.

l10n_be_pos_blackbox_self_order:
- Intercepts self-order confirmation on kiosk screens to sign the
  order with the FDM before the confirmation page is shown; adds a
  controller to expose the required blackbox data to the kiosk
  frontend.

l10n_be_pos_blackbox_settle_due:
- Handles the "settle due" payment flow: products used to represent
  deferred payments are flagged and treated as zero-VAT lines in the
  signed message.

l10n_be_pos_blackbox_urban_piper:
- Patches the Urban Piper ticket-screen and pos_store so that online
  orders routed through Urban Piper are also signed before finalisation.

task-id: 5864870

community PR: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/229692

Customers placing an order without logging in and with the "Pick up in store" delivery method are not notified when the delivery is confirmed

1. Install eCommerce and Sales
2. Go to Settings > Website > Delivery and enable "Click & Collect"
3. Go to Settings > Inventory > Shipping and enable "Email Confirmation"
4. Go to Website > Configuration > Payment Providers and Install Demo
5. Go to Website > Configuration > Delivery Methods and open "Pick up in store", set YourCompany as warehouse and publish it
6. Go to Sales > Products, open product "Office Lamp", click on "Update Quantity" in the status bar and add 5 units
7. Log out
8. Go to the shop, add product "Office Lamp" to the cart and checkout
9. Fill in the address form and continue checkout
10. Select "Pick up in store" as delivery method and select a location
11. Confirm the order and pay with Demo
12. As user Mitchell Admin, go to Sales, remove the default filter and open the newly created sale order
13. Open the related delivery with the smart button and validate it
14. No delivery order confirmation was sent to the customer (check emails)

Issue:
Confirming an order with a "Pick up in store" delivery method replaces the `partner_shipping_id` of the sale order with an archived partner
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/d73e5662a0af7c549008661f743ba5d51f765339/addons/delivery/models/sale_order.py#L178-L192
which updates the `partner_id` of the related `stock.picking` with the archived partner
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/d73e5662a0af7c549008661f743ba5d51f765339/addons/sale_stock/models/sale_order.py#L130-L132
This will unsubscribe the old `partner_id` on the `stock.picking` and try to subscribe the archived partner
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/d73e5662a0af7c549008661f743ba5d51f765339/addons/stock/models/stock_picking.py#L1120-L1125
Because the partner we want to subscribe is archived, he will be filtered out and the subscribe action will have no effect, preventing him from receiving the delivery confirmation
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/d73e5662a0af7c549008661f743ba5d51f765339/addons/mail/models/mail_thread.py#L4367-L4369

Solution:
Subscribe the parent of the archived partner when we write a `partner_id` on pickings with "in_store" `delivery_type`. This ensures the unarchived partner is subscribed to the picking allowing him to receive the mail confirmation.

opw-6095396

Before this commit, for DBs with a very large number of products it was possible for the thread to run out of memory when importing an invoice or a bill.
The reason is that the name on product.product is non stored and computed. This leads to tons of recomputes, which in turn leads to reads and stores in cache of the underlying `product.product`, which down the line uses up all of the available memory for the thread.

The proposed method uses batches instead of a `search_fetch` as the latter would not solve the recompute problem and hence the underlying memory problem.
Another alternative approach could be going straight for the `product.template.name`, but that approach might introduce a loss of precision or functionality when searching for products at invoice import.

Here is the memory graph from memray before the fix:
<img width="1106" height="450" alt="opw-6168737-memray-pre-fix" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/f971dc4d-aa09-41e3-a8c5-e5ca53f9786d" />

And here is the same graph after the fix:
<img width="1106" height="450" alt="opw-6168737-memray-post-fix" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/0a784cdc-9b40-498b-bbcb-89114eec1ec9" />

We can see a much lower peak memory usage after the fix. We an also observe that the memory complexity shifts from `O(n)` to `O(1)`, with `n` being the number of `product.product` records stored in the DB.

For both presented graphs, the same, unaltered database was tested. The database contains 389 467 `product.product` records.

opw-6168737

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262591

Steps to reproduce
1. Create a Combo Product with some combo items.
2. Open Odoo on a mobile device or simulate mobile view (isSmall=true).
3. Create a new Quotation and add the Combo Product via the "Add product"
   button in the order lines kanban.

Issue
The combo product is added directly to the order lines with a price of
0.00, and the Combo Configurator dialog never opens.

On mobile, the 'product_id' field in the 'sale.order.line' inline form
view uses the generic 'many2one_barcode' widget. This widget is a
standard Many2one with barcode support but lacks the specific logic in
'SaleOrderLineProductField'
(https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/d1ab74aebc356537dd2a7df43fb40150580802ea/addons/sale/static/src/js/sale_product_field.js#L74-L92)
that detects combo/configurable products and opens the appropriate
configurator dialog. On desktop, the 'sol_product_many2one' widget
handles this, but it was not used on mobile because it lacks barcode
scanning features.

Solution
The inline form view now uses 'sol_product_many2one' with
options="{'can_scan_barcode': True}" instead of 'many2one_barcode'.
This leverages the existing 'can_scan_barcode' option on Many2OneField
(https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/7ba46d2cea7f522e17ffe04c4051469fb0320a76/addons/web/static/src/views/fields/many2one/many2one_field.js#L390),
giving the field both configurator logic and barcode support. The fields
needed for combo state ('selected_combo_items', 'virtual_id') are also
added to the mobile views.

opw-6062731

## **Issue**

When a cash basis tax is configured with a payable/receivable
transition account, tax journal items are generated on that account
without a due date.

Since payable/receivable accounts require a due date on journal
items, this leads to a validation error during move creation:

"Any journal item on a payable account must have a due date and vice versa."

## **Steps to reproduce:**

1. Install the Accounting and Inter-Company modules.
2. Create an additional company so that there are a total of two companies, then switch to Company 1.
3. Create a product with a price and assign a tax to it.
4. Navigate to Accounting → Configuration → Settings and enable Cash Basis accounting.
5. Go to Accounting → Configuration → Taxes and open the purchase tax (or the tax assigned to the product).
6. In the Tax Computation section, ensure that Group of Taxes is not selected.
7. Under the Advanced Options tab, set Tax Exigibility to Based on Payment.
8. Set the Cash Basis Transition Account to a payable account.
9. Open Company Settings, select Company 1, go to the Inter-Company Transactions section, and enable Synchronize invoices/bills.
10. Switch to Company 2 and create an invoice using the same product. Select the contact that is the partner of Company 1.
11. Confirm the invoice.

The following error is raised:

"Any journal item on a payable account must have a due date and vice versa."

## **With This Commit:**
Added a domain on the Cash Basis Transition Account field to prevent
users from selecting payable or receivable accounts, avoiding invalid
configurations and runtime validation errors.

opw-6189615

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263792

Currently, an incorrect VAT format is used in the generated `FA3 XML`
for non-Polish partners, where the VAT number includes the country code.

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install the `l10n_pl_edi` module and switch to a `PL Company`.
- Go to Settings and enable `Allow KSeF integration` (refer to [1]).
- Create and confirm an invoice for a customer (e.g., Azure Interior).
- Send the invoice using `by KSeF (e-Faktura)`.

**Observation:**
In the generated XML file, the `NrID` field contains the VAT number 
`with the country code` for non-Polish partners.

**Root Cause:**
At [2], `get_vat_number` sets the VAT number using `compact` from 
`stdnum.pl.nip`, which only works for Polish VAT numbers.

At [3], `get_vat_number` correctly formats Polish VAT numbers without 
the country code in the `if condition`. However, in the fallback (else) case, 
it returns the VAT number as it is, including the country code.

**Fix:**
This commit ensures that for non-Polish VAT numbers, the country code is 
removed before setting the `NrID` or `NrVatUE` values in the XML, 
aligning the format with KSeF requirements.

Ref: https://ksef.podatki.gov.pl/media/4u1bmhx4/information-sheet-on-the-fa-3-logical-structure.pdf (Page no.: 19)

[1]:
https://www.odoo.com/mail/message/1057847327

[2]:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/d73e5662a0af7c549008661f743ba5d51f765339/addons/l10n_pl_edi/models/account_move.py#L257

[3]:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/d73e5662a0af7c549008661f743ba5d51f765339/addons/l10n_pl_edi/data/fa3_template.xml#L67-L82

opw-6120118

### Issue before this commit:
In the Italian Annual VAT Report, the balance (base amount) for line VF25 displays incorrect values. Instead of computing the sum of the taxable bases for the passive operations, the report erroneously mixes tax amounts into the balance column.

### Steps to reproduce the issue:
1. Download Accounting and l10n_it
2. Go to Tax Report and visualize the Annual Tax Report (IT)
3. Go to VF VAT Report
4. See the VF25 is mixing taxes and balances

### Cause of the issue:
The root cause lies in the aggregation_formula definition for the tax_annual_report_line_VF25 record. The formula was incorrectly configured to aggregate the .tax expressions for lines VF1 to VF13 (VF1.tax + VF2.tax + ...) instead of their respective .balance expressions, while correctly using .balance for the remaining lines (VF17 to VF24).
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/878c08cf522a3278b4e6ff5f3d18444989e9998d/addons/l10n_it/data/tax_report/annual_report_sections/vf.xml#L286-L299

It's just a typo in this commit: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/164064/changes/f292ba119d6376dbfb3c1fac4960c9c56a74d938

### Reason to introduce the fix:
From documentation https://www.agenziaentrate.gov.it/portale/documents/20143/9602686/IVA_ANNUALE_2026_istr.pdf/2a42fb92-1b76-229a-d0f5-06069d79b514?t=1768504755711 : 

> Rigo VF25, colonna 1, va indicato il totale degli imponibili determinato sommando gli importi riportati ai righi da VF1 a VF23, colonna 1, diminuito dell’importo di cui al rigo VF24. In colonna 2 va indicato il totale delle imposte determinato sommando gli importi delle colonne 2 dei righi da VF1 a VF13.

opw-6172791

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264379

### Steps to reproduce:

- In the settings enable dropshipping
- Create a storable product P, enable the dropshipping and set a vendor
- Create and confirm a sale order for a field service
- Open the related task > Products > Add 1 unit of P
- Go back to the sale order > an RFQ has been created
#### > The delivered quantity of P is set to 1

### Cause of the issue:

Since 2361368acfe7fecbffde2ca26392eb89aecdc9e1 the `_inverse_fsm_quantity` method manually adapts the delivered quantity based on the fact that the `product.service_type` is `manual` rather than the `qty_delivered_method` of the line or future line is. In particular, because these lines: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/8f4fe902cb71c49bdb3caf9915f9a5abfe6f237f/industry_fsm_sale/models/product_product.py#L82-L83
provide a value of the `qty_delivered` to the created purchase order line and since the `qty_delivered_method` is a precomputed field: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/fdfd9851393ff82a265997478886bcad6da357d0/addons/sale/models/sale_order_line.py#L225-L237
The fact that the purchase order line will be created with a `stock_move` `qty_delivered_method` and that the generated PO does not generate any move prior to confirmation will not trigger the dependency of the `qty_delivered` to retrigger a computation of the `delivered_qty` of the product which is suppose to be based on stock pickings: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/fdfd9851393ff82a265997478886bcad6da357d0/addons/sale/models/sale_order_line.py#L871-L876 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/fdfd9851393ff82a265997478886bcad6da357d0/addons/sale_stock/models/sale_order_line.py#L193-L198
Leaving the created sol with a delivered quantity of 1 prior to confirmation of the PO (which will generate move_ids related to the sol and trigger the compute).

Fix:

The changes of 2361368acfe7fecbffde2ca26392eb89aecdc9e1 regarding the `_inverse_fsm_quantity` appears unjustified with respect to the purpose of the fix. In addition, the `qty_delivered` and changes are already expected to be properly computed when the `qty_delivered_method` is not manual, particularly since the '`manual'` `service_type` is actually the default `service_type` corresponding to any 'consu' product and looks unrelated by any mean to the `delivered_qty` computation: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/fdfd9851393ff82a265997478886bcad6da357d0/addons/sale/models/product_template.py#L165-L167

opw-6104326

### Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:
Prevent Out of Memory (OOM) crashes and drastically improve execution speed when generating the Swedish SIE4 verification export for massive datasets.

### Current behavior before PR:
When exporting a large volume of journal entries (e.g., 190,000+ account moves), the `_export_l10n_se_sie4_verification` method relies on iterating through heavy ORM recordsets and accessing relational child fields (move.line_ids) inside a loop. This triggers a severe N+1 query problem, maxing out server RAM and causing an OOM crash.

### Desired behavior after PR is merged:
The method now utilizes a hybrid data extraction approach:
- The ORM is used strictly to safely evaluate domains (multi-company rules, dates, states) and fetch a lightweight list of valid move_ids.
- A single SQL query with JOIN statements fetches all parent moves, child lines, and account codes in exactly one database query.
- itertools.groupby chunks the flat, lightweight dictionary results back into their respective journal entries.
The export now handles massive datasets in seconds with minimal memory overhead, while remaining perfectly secure.

### Benchmark:

For Memory:
| # Input Data | Before PR | After PR |
| -------- | -------- | -------- |
| ~190,000 moves | MemoryError | 407MB|
| ~200,000 moves | 1.8GB | 174.8 MB|

For Speed:
| # Input Data | Before PR | After PR |
| -------- | -------- | -------- |
| ~190,000 moves | MemoryError | 5.10s |
| ~200,000 moves | 1m29s| 5.3s|

### Reference:
opw-6067999