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#116914
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#112522

### 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#264759
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#241827

- Attendance checkout
    - Step to reproduce: with attendance installed and an employee checked in, archive that employee by HR user. If missing attendance rights, the employee will be archived but not checked out from its ongoing attendance.
    - Cause: if no role set for Attendance (default), no permission to update the employee attendance while archiving.
    - Solution: using sudo method so that any user with sufficient rights to archive an employee, can trigger check out of the corresponding attendance.

- Planning access error (fixed in 18.0 by https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/219395)
    - Step to reproduce: with attendance and planning installed, archive an employee having planning slots. If missing planning rights, an access error is raised
    - Cause: on employee archive, the corresponding planning.slots are updated and some fields recomputed with insufficient rights.
    - Solution: using sudo method for recompute.

Task: 6131692

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264518
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#260566

**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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264989

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263081

Steps to Reproduce:
---
1. Create a new project.
2. Convert it into a template.
3. Click on "Undo".
4. Try to convert the project into a template again.

Issue:
---
After undoing the template conversion, the project's original documents folder
remained archived while the template's documents folder stayed active. This
inconsistent state prevented subsequent template creation from the same project.

Current behaviour:
---
A UserError is raised: "You cannot duplicate document(s) in the Trash."

Expected behaviour:
---
Undoing the template conversion should properly restore the original project's
documents folder to active state and clean up the template's documents folder,
allowing template conversion again without document folder conflicts.

Fix:
---
- Archive original project's documents folder during template creation to
prevent mixed active/inactive states during copy operations
- Implement callback system to properly unarchive original project's
documents folder during undo

task-4916027

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264429
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#223152

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

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

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

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

opw-5881564

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264713
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#261278

When computing `qty_to_order` 1-3 extra queries are made by `get_lead_days()`, which can cause performance issues when computing `qty_to_order` for a large number of orderpoints.

This commit aims to prevent these extra queries by returning early if the current product is not associated with a bom. The amount this commit speeds up the compute depends on how many of products passed into `_get_lead_days()` are associated with a bom.

`qty_to_order` is no longer a stored field after this commit: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/159432
This benchmark was done in 18.0 on /stock.warehouse.orderpoint/search_panel_select_range. This call does not trigger the compute on all orderpoints in 17.0 as the field is stored but calling the compute directly on all orderpoints results in the same speed up as seen in 18.0.

| Orderpoints | % of products linked to a bom | Time before | Queries before | Time after | Queries After |
|-------------|-------------------------------|-------------|----------------|------------|---------------|
|         800 | 50%                           | 2.8s        |           1570 | 2.3s       |           818 |
|       8,000 | 0%                            | 28.2s       |         16,698 | 15.3s      |           242 |
|       8,000 | 25%                           | 29.6s       |         16,833 | 19.2s      |          4497 |
|       8,000 | 50%                           | 29.8s       |         16,925 | 23.2s      |          8693 |
|       8,000 | 75%                           | 31.6s       |         16,949 | 27.6s      |         12827 |

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264848
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262321

When an attachment has neither `store_fname` nor `db_datas`, the computed `raw` field was being assigned `False`.

This caused crashes in flows expecting binary content, where `binary_to_image()` ultimately passes the value to `io.BytesIO()`, which requires bytes-like data.

Traceback:
```python
Traceback (most recent call last):
   File "/tmp/tmpufuj48vj/migrations/base/tests/test_mock_crawl.py", line 344,
 in crawl_menu self.mock_action(action_vals)
   File "/tmp/tmpufuj48vj/migrations/base/tests/test_mock_crawl.py", line 357,
 in mock_action return self.mock_act_window(action)
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   File "/tmp/tmpufuj48vj/migrations/base/tests/test_mock_crawl.py", line 517,
 in mock_act_window mock_method(model, view, fields_list, domain, group_by)
   File "/tmp/tmpufuj48vj/migrations/base/tests/test_mock_crawl.py", line 550,
 in mock_view_form [data] = record.read(fields_list)
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.2/odoo/orm/models.py", line 2734, in read
    self._origin.fetch(fields)
   File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.2/odoo/orm/models.py", line 3065, in fetch
    fetched.mapped(field_name)
   File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.2/odoo/orm/models.py", line 5477, in mapped
    return [getter(record) for record in records]
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.2/odoo/orm/fields.py", line 1793, in
 __get__ self.compute_value(recs)
   File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.2/odoo/orm/fields.py", line 1964,
 in compute_value records._compute_field_value(self)
   File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.2/addons/mail/models/mail_thread.py",
 line 495, in _compute_field_value return super()._compute_field_value(field)
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.2/odoo/orm/models.py", line 4269,
 in _compute_field_value determine(field.compute, self)
   File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.2/odoo/orm/fields.py", line 82,
 in determine return needle(*args)
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/home/odoo/src/enterprise/saas-19.2/social_instagram/models/
social_post_template.py", line 57, in _compute_instagram_preview
    faulty_images, error_code = post._get_instagram_image_error()
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   File "/home/odoo/src/enterprise/saas-19.2/social_instagram/models/
social_post_template.py", line 108, in _get_instagram_image_error
    image = binary_to_image(jpeg_image.with_context(bin_size=False).raw)
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.2/odoo/tools/image.py", line 428,
 in binary_to_image return Image.open(io.BytesIO(source))
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 TypeError: a bytes-like object is required, not 'bool'
```
To prevent this, fallback to an empty bytes object (`b''`) when `db_datas` is falsy during `_compute_raw`.

[here]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/saas-19.2/social_instagram/models/social_post_template.py#L108

upg-4247928
opw-6181262

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

Current behavior before PR:

Desired behavior after PR is merged:




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

- Attendance checkout
    - Step to reproduce: with attendance installed and an employee checked in, archive that employee by HR user. If missing attendance rights, the employee will be archived but not checked out from its ongoing attendance.
    - Cause: if no role set for Attendance (default), no permission to update the employee attendance while archiving.
    - Solution: using sudo method so that any user with sufficient rights to archive an employee, can trigger check out of the corresponding attendance.

- Planning access error (fixed in 18.0 by https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/219395)
    - Step to reproduce: with attendance and planning installed, archive an employee having planning slots. If missing planning rights, an access error is raised
    - Cause: on employee archive, the corresponding planning.slots are updated and some fields recomputed with insufficient rights.
    - Solution: using sudo method for recompute.

Task: 6131692

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264518
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#260566

**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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264989

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

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

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

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

opw-5881564

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264713
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#261278

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263081

Steps to Reproduce:
---
1. Create a new project.
2. Convert it into a template.
3. Click on "Undo".
4. Try to convert the project into a template again.

Issue:
---
After undoing the template conversion, the project's original documents folder
remained archived while the template's documents folder stayed active. This
inconsistent state prevented subsequent template creation from the same project.

Current behaviour:
---
A UserError is raised: "You cannot duplicate document(s) in the Trash."

Expected behaviour:
---
Undoing the template conversion should properly restore the original project's
documents folder to active state and clean up the template's documents folder,
allowing template conversion again without document folder conflicts.

Fix:
---
- Archive original project's documents folder during template creation to
prevent mixed active/inactive states during copy operations
- Implement callback system to properly unarchive original project's
documents folder during undo

task-4916027

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264429
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#223152

Behavior before:
The import flow could crash with an "Expected singleton" error if multiple
journals shared an IBAN. Additionally, the system blindly accepted the
current context ('self') as the target journal, even if its currency or
bank account mismatched the statement, often leading to avoidable
UserErrors.

Behavior after:
The system now validates 'self' against the statement's currency and IBAN
before assignment. If a mismatch is found, it automatically searches for
the correct journal. The search is now restricted by currency and includes
a limit=1 to prevent crashes and ensure accurate selection.

Root Cause:
In _find_additional_data(), 'journal = self' was assigned without validation.
Furthermore, the fallback search lacked a record limit and currency matching
logic, allowing multiple records to be returned when duplicates or
multi-currency setups existed.

Fix:
- Added validation for the initial 'self' candidate (currency and IBAN match).
- Refined the search domain to include currency matching (journal or
  company fallback).
- Added limit=1 to the search to guarantee a singleton recordset.

opw-5462037

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117376
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#115475

When computing `qty_to_order` 1-3 extra queries are made by `get_lead_days()`, which can cause performance issues when computing `qty_to_order` for a large number of orderpoints.

This commit aims to prevent these extra queries by returning early if the current product is not associated with a bom. The amount this commit speeds up the compute depends on how many of products passed into `_get_lead_days()` are associated with a bom.

`qty_to_order` is no longer a stored field after this commit: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/159432
This benchmark was done in 18.0 on /stock.warehouse.orderpoint/search_panel_select_range. This call does not trigger the compute on all orderpoints in 17.0 as the field is stored but calling the compute directly on all orderpoints results in the same speed up as seen in 18.0.

| Orderpoints | % of products linked to a bom | Time before | Queries before | Time after | Queries After |
|-------------|-------------------------------|-------------|----------------|------------|---------------|
|         800 | 50%                           | 2.8s        |           1570 | 2.3s       |           818 |
|       8,000 | 0%                            | 28.2s       |         16,698 | 15.3s      |           242 |
|       8,000 | 25%                           | 29.6s       |         16,833 | 19.2s      |          4497 |
|       8,000 | 50%                           | 29.8s       |         16,925 | 23.2s      |          8693 |
|       8,000 | 75%                           | 31.6s       |         16,949 | 27.6s      |         12827 |

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262321

**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#264434
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#259566

- Attendance checkout
    - Step to reproduce: with attendance installed and an employee checked in, archive that employee by HR user. If missing attendance rights, the employee will be archived but not checked out from its ongoing attendance.
    - Cause: if no role set for Attendance (default), no permission to update the employee attendance while archiving.
    - Solution: using sudo method so that any user with sufficient rights to archive an employee, can trigger check out of the corresponding attendance.

- Planning access error (fixed in 18.0 by https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/219395)
    - Step to reproduce: with attendance and planning installed, archive an employee having planning slots. If missing planning rights, an access error is raised
    - Cause: on employee archive, the corresponding planning.slots are updated and some fields recomputed with insufficient rights.
    - Solution: using sudo method for recompute.

Task: 6131692

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264518
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#260566

## **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#264777
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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263081

**Steps to reproduce in runbot:**
1. Install hr_holidays_attendance.
2. Create an employee with a contract start date (e.g., April 1st).
3. Set the timezone(for both user and emp working schedule) to Europe/Brussels.
4. Create an attendance record (e.g., April 15th).
5. Go to Reporting > Time Off Ledger and remove all filters.
 -> Attendance is correctly shown for all dates from April 1st
6. Create a public holiday on April 16th starting at 00:00.
7. Check the Time Off Ledger again.

**Issue:**
The attendance entry for April 15th disappears after adding the public holiday.

**Cause:**
Calendar leave datetime fields (date_from/date_to) are stored in UTC but compared against attendance dates without converting to the employee's resource calendar timezone, causing date boundaries to shift and records to be incorrectly excluded.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b293ce50e0fc9355ffd233557f079916b514eac7/addons/hr_holidays_attendance/report/hr_leave_attendance_report.py#L133-L144

**Solution:**
Convert calendar leave datetimes to the resource calendar timezone before casting to date, ensuring comparisons reflect the correct local boundaries.

**NOTE:**
This issue is mainly reproducible on runbot since its server timezone is
GMT. On local machines configured with UTC, the stored datetime values
already align with the expected conversions, so the date shift does not occur.


opw-6118043




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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262179

Steps to reproduce:-
- Navigate to Time off Dashboard calendar view.
- Create a leave. First approve it then refuse it.
- Now on the same day create a leave and approve it.
- Now re-approve the previously refused leave from step 2.
- System will let user to create 2 leave of same types on same day!

Cause:-
In `_compute_dashboard_warning_message`, refused/cancelled leaves were
excluded from warning computation. When approving a refused request,
the warning message was not set, allowing the constraint check to pass
even when conflicting approved requests existed for the same period.

Fix:-
1. Refactored `_compute_dashboard_warning_message` to only compute
   warnings for active leaves (non-refused/cancelled) while still
   detecting conflicts with already approved requests
2. Updated `_check_date` constraint to skip validation for refused/
   cancelled leaves, but enforce it when state changes to validate
3. Added 'state' to constraint triggers to ensure validation runs
   when approving previously refused requests

task-[6181717](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project/1251/tasks/6181717)
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262703

__
## Short functional explanation of the error
When setting attendances on several consecutive days for a flexible employee, with an overtime ruleset containing a single rule. This rule being based on week and quantity.
When regenerating overtimes for this ruleset, the overtime hours generated isn't correct.

## Reproduction Steps
1. Create an employee. In the Payroll tab, set a start date for their contract. Set Work Entry Source as Attendances. Set their Working Hours as a flexible schedule. Set their weekly hours at 40.
2. Create an Overtime Ruleset. Add a single rule, based on Quantity, if the worked hours on a `Week` differs `from the amount defined on the contract`. Check Pay Extra Hours and leave the Work Entry Type to use as Overtime Hours.
3. Go back to the employee. In Settings, set the Overtime Ruleset field as the new Overtime Ruleset you just created.
4. Create 5 attendances, each from 8 am to 6 pm, from Monday to Friday.
5. Go to the Overtime Ruleset you just created and click on Regenerate Overtimes.
6. Go back to Attendances. Search for your employee, and click on the list view.

### Expected behavior
The employee's schedule is 40 hours per week. They worked 50 hours. 10 hours should be considered as Worked Extra Hours.

### Unexpected behavior
18 hours are considered as extra hours.

## Origin of the issue
To compute the expected duration of the day, we run: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/7fc5edc29f854d619dbcb5fcc3503fb18ca05335/addons/hr_attendance/models/hr_attendance_overtime_rule.py#L303-L304 where `schedule['work']` will contain intervals on 5 consecutive days, from 8 am to 4 pm.
However, the last day of the employee's attendances isn't contained in these intervals. As a result, `period_schedule` will contain 4 days (the common days between the employee's Attendance days and `schedule['work']` ) and thus, `expected_duration` will be set at 36 hours instead of 40.
In the case where overtimes are computed based on hours from the 
contract, for flexible employees, the expected hours are the ones
indicated on their schedule.

__
opw-6131543

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263335

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

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

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

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

opw-5881564

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264713
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#261278

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

opw-5479900

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264798
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#245905

Version:
--------
- saas-19.1+

Step to reproduce:
----------------------
* Install *sale_management* and *stock* modules.
* Create a Sale Order with at least two order lines.
  * Set different *Customer Lead Time* (it is optional hide by default)
 on each line:
    * Line A: 5 days
    * Line B: 10 days
* Confirm the Sale Order.
* Open the generated Delivery Order.
* Enable the *Deadline* field on stock moves (it is optional hide by default).
* Check the *Deadline* value for each move

issue:
-----
 * Both stock moves have the same *Deadline*, corresponding to the minimum
  lead time (earliest date), instead of their respective values.
 
Root cause:
-----------
1. User confirms a Sale Order with two lines:
     - Line A: customer_lead = 5  → _expected_date() = order_date + 5
     - Line B: customer_lead = 10 → _expected_date() = order_date + 10

2. sale.order.action_confirm()
   └─ Before calling `_action_confirm()`, the method set:
        `order.commitment_date = order.expected_date`
      where `expected_date = min(all line._expected_date()) = order_date + 5`

3. sale.order._action_confirm()
   └─ calls order_line._action_launch_stock_rule()
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/00edcf55380431c454857b2749f2fe4930b1e758/addons/sale_stock/models/sale_order.py#L209

4. sale.order.line._action_launch_stock_rule()
   └─ per line: calls line._prepare_procurement_values()

5. sale.order.line._prepare_procurement_values()
   └─ date_deadline = self.order_id.commitment_date or self._expected_date()
      Because commitment_date was force-set in step 2, BOTH lines resolve to
      order_date + 5 instead of their individual values.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/00edcf55380431c454857b2749f2fe4930b1e758/addons/sale_stock/models/sale_order_line.py#L281

NOTE:
------

This issue originates from changes introduced in task: https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project/966/tasks/4687135
That task aimed to add the Promise Date to Purchase Order Lines and, during 
confirmation, assign it as the expected arrival date.

* This behavior works correctly in Purchase Orders because the Promise Date is
 applied at the purchase order line level and aligned with each 
line’s expected arrival date.  It does not participate in the computation of 
date_deadline.

- In the purchase flow:
The incoming stock move date_deadline is directly derived from each line’s 
expected arrival date.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/00edcf55380431c454857b2749f2fe4930b1e758/addons/purchase_stock/models/purchase_order_line.py#L308
There is no dependency on a promise date.
As a result, deadlines remain per-line and accurate.

However, in the Sale Order flow, the same approach introduces an issue.

Here:
The Promise Date (commitment_date) exists at the order level, not at line level.
During confirmation, it is set using the minimum of all line expected dates.
The delivery stock move date_deadline depends on this commitment_date.

As a consequence:

Setting a single order-level promise date overrides all per-line expected dates.
All stock moves receive the same (minimum) deadline.

Additionally, this is not aligned with the business logic:

Example:
Line A → lead time = 5 days
Line B → lead time = 10 days
Current behavior sets deadline = min(5, 10) = 5 days for all moves,
which incorrectly forces later deliveries to be scheduled earlier than intended.

Solution:
---------
* Remove the automatic assignment of commitment_date = expected_date in action_confirm().
commitment_date is a user-defined promised delivery date and should not be
 implicitly set during confirmation. By leaving it unset, procurement values
correctly fall back to line._expected_date(), restoring per-line deadline
computation.

---

opw-6106045

Steps to Reproduce:
---
1. Create a new project.
2. Convert it into a template.
3. Click on "Undo".
4. Try to convert the project into a template again.

Issue:
---
After undoing the template conversion, the project's original documents folder
remained archived while the template's documents folder stayed active. This
inconsistent state prevented subsequent template creation from the same project.

Current behaviour:
---
A UserError is raised: "You cannot duplicate document(s) in the Trash."

Expected behaviour:
---
Undoing the template conversion should properly restore the original project's
documents folder to active state and clean up the template's documents folder,
allowing template conversion again without document folder conflicts.

Fix:
---
- Archive original project's documents folder during template creation to
prevent mixed active/inactive states during copy operations
- Implement callback system to properly unarchive original project's
documents folder during undo

task-4916027

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264429
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#223152

**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#116944
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#115085

**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create a company with a branch.
2. Create account journals for both the parent and branch companies.
3. Create an employee in the branch company and assign a salary structure to the employee. Also, make sure the employee’s contract is started.
4. Create a pay run for this employee while staying in the parent company.
5. Generate and validate the payslip.
6. Check that the `move_id` (draft journal entry) is created for the employee’s company, not the currently selected company.

**Issue:**
When an employee belongs to a branch company and we create a pay-run/payslip for that employee, the draft journal entry is created using the default company.

**Fix:**
Since `journal_id` is a company-dependent field, we will use `slip.struct_id.with_company(slip.company_id).journal_id`. This ensures that we will pass correct slip's `journal_id` to `_create_account_move()`.

After that `_compute_company_id()` in `account_move.py` will be executed, and the `move_id` will have the correct `company_id`. Ref [code](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/1839e68cad91f6b16865f6ac365500ab6fbda835/addons/account/models/account_move.py#L889-L896)
Hence, the issue will be fixed.

task: 6123216

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

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

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

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

-----
Ticket:
opw-6013387

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#116639
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#111304

**Problem:**
When a project analytic budget is revised, the project update description shows an inflated total budget — the sum of both the original and the revised amounts — instead of reflecting only the active (confirmed) revision.

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Create a project with an analytic account
2. Create an analytic budget of $10,000 and confirm it
3. Create a revision of that budget for $15,000 and confirm it
4. Create a new project update
5. The update shows "$25,000" as the total budget instead of "$15,000"

**Current behavior:**
The project update displays the sum of all budget revisions ($25,000), regardless of their state.

**Expected behavior:**
Only the active confirmed budget ($15,000) should be used.

**Cause of the issue:**
`_compute_budget` queries all `budget.line` records matching the project's analytic account without filtering by the parent `budget.analytic` state. When a budget is revised, the original transitions to state `revised` while the new one becomes `confirmed`. Because `_compute_budget` has no state filter, it sums both, producing an inflated `total_budget_amount`. This field is then used in the project update template to compute the displayed budget total and percentage. By contrast, `_get_budget_items` — used for the detail rows — already applies `state in ['confirmed', 'done']`, so the two methods were inconsistent.

**Fix:**
Applying the same state filter to `_compute_budget` as already present in `_get_budget_items` ensures both methods draw from the same set of active budgets, keeping the project update totals consistent with the budget detail rows.

opw-6128855

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#116670
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#115285

## Issue 1:

Backport of 7654c558c4d517807884b0a82323dd160feeda2a

For Colombia, Envia expects the municipality/DANE-style code in the address payload, not the raw postal code.
    
When `l10n_co_edi` was not installed, the Envia integration fell back to the partner zip code and padded it locally before sending it as both `postalCode` and `city`. This produced incorrect values such as turning the Ibagué zip code `730001` into `73000100`, while Envia geocodes resolves that zip code to `73001000`.
    
Use Envia geocodes to resolve the Colombia zip fallback and retrieve the `stat_8digit` code expected by Envia instead of deriving it locally.

## Issue 2:

### 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 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-6083181
opw-6210007

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117414

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263081

**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#116944
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#115085

Backport of 7c68c3dbb29eaad4e09d59ef7c86bd525969caec Including its fix: e490c0c66561715853a3f80658f47c940bc453dc

### Issues:

Cancelling the move dest of a manufacturing order does not cancel the MO nor log's an activity warning for the responsible to update the manufacturing demand manually.

Additionally, when selling MTO manufactured products, cancelling the delivery and then changing the sol's demand will update the MO for an incorrect amount.

### Steps to reproduce:

- In the settings: Enable Multi-Steps Routes
- Inventory > Configuration > Warehouse Management > Routes
- Unarchive the MTO route
- Create an MTO, amnufactured product with BOM
- Create and confirm an SO for 3 units of that product
- Cancel the delivery of 3 units
#### > There is no notification on the unrelevant MO linked to the SO
- Adapt the quantity of the SOL from 3 to 0
#### > The delivery is cancelled but no activity is logged what's so ever

### Expected behavior:

Both of these operations should log an activity as the demand of the MO is not updated on quantity decrease.

opw-6010109
opw-6105366
opw-6100043
opw-6087909

X-original-commit: 796316c341c4346152ad9610c30679f47aaa2ff8

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264732
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#258093

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

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

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

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

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

opw-5958678

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263913
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#251993

**Problem:**
When a project analytic budget is revised, the project update description shows an inflated total budget — the sum of both the original and the revised amounts — instead of reflecting only the active (confirmed) revision.

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Create a project with an analytic account
2. Create an analytic budget of $10,000 and confirm it
3. Create a revision of that budget for $15,000 and confirm it
4. Create a new project update
5. The update shows "$25,000" as the total budget instead of "$15,000"

**Current behavior:**
The project update displays the sum of all budget revisions ($25,000), regardless of their state.

**Expected behavior:**
Only the active confirmed budget ($15,000) should be used.

**Cause of the issue:**
`_compute_budget` queries all `budget.line` records matching the project's analytic account without filtering by the parent `budget.analytic` state. When a budget is revised, the original transitions to state `revised` while the new one becomes `confirmed`. Because `_compute_budget` has no state filter, it sums both, producing an inflated `total_budget_amount`. This field is then used in the project update template to compute the displayed budget total and percentage. By contrast, `_get_budget_items` — used for the detail rows — already applies `state in ['confirmed', 'done']`, so the two methods were inconsistent.

**Fix:**
Applying the same state filter to `_compute_budget` as already present in `_get_budget_items` ensures both methods draw from the same set of active budgets, keeping the project update totals consistent with the budget detail rows.

opw-6128855

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#116670
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#115285

### 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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#115760

## Issue 1:

Backport of 7654c558c4d517807884b0a82323dd160feeda2a

For Colombia, Envia expects the municipality/DANE-style code in the address payload, not the raw postal code.
    
When `l10n_co_edi` was not installed, the Envia integration fell back to the partner zip code and padded it locally before sending it as both `postalCode` and `city`. This produced incorrect values such as turning the Ibagué zip code `730001` into `73000100`, while Envia geocodes resolves that zip code to `73001000`.
    
Use Envia geocodes to resolve the Colombia zip fallback and retrieve the `stat_8digit` code expected by Envia instead of deriving it locally.

## Issue 2:

### 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 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-6083181
opw-6210007

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117414

**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#116944
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#115085

### 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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#115760

## Issue 1:

Backport of 7654c558c4d517807884b0a82323dd160feeda2a

For Colombia, Envia expects the municipality/DANE-style code in the address payload, not the raw postal code.
    
When `l10n_co_edi` was not installed, the Envia integration fell back to the partner zip code and padded it locally before sending it as both `postalCode` and `city`. This produced incorrect values such as turning the Ibagué zip code `730001` into `73000100`, while Envia geocodes resolves that zip code to `73001000`.
    
Use Envia geocodes to resolve the Colombia zip fallback and retrieve the `stat_8digit` code expected by Envia instead of deriving it locally.

## Issue 2:

### 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 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-6083181
opw-6210007

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117414

This commit removes the holiday pay recovery wizard and replaces it with salary rules
applied automatically in December payslips and in termination fees payslips for
joint committee 200.

The regularization now computes the missing simple and double holiday pay when the
amount paid during the year is lower than the amount due, both at year-end and at
contract end. If the amount already paid is higher, no correction is applied.

The implementation:

- computes remuneration N-1 including fictive salary for assimilated absences
- applies a different N-1 remuneration depending on the context:
        - departure attest: includes 13th month salary
        - December settlement: excludes 13th month salary
- computes simple holiday pay due as 7.67% of remuneration N-1
- computes simple holiday pay recovery as max(due - received, 0)
- computes double holiday pay due based on the higher of:
        - 7.67% of remuneration N-1
        - the wage of the month when the employee reached half of their legal holidays
- computes double holiday pay recovery as max(due - received, 0)
- splits double holiday pay into base and complementary components
- uses the Partena-based logic to determine the main holiday month

Users can still manually adjust the result directly on payslip lines when needed.

Related PRs:
upgrade: [github.com/odoo/upgrade/pull/9628](http://github.com/odoo/upgrade/pull/9628)

task-5429973

__

## 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

### 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:**
* 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

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#117453
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#114156

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#116883
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#112524

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#116914
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#112522

Currently an exception is generated when the user submits the custom
website form after following the below steps:

- Install `web_studio`, `website` and `crm`
- Go to the website > Open the website editor > Add a form to the website
- Configure the form as below:
      Action: Click `More models` > select `crm.tead`
      Field: add any custom
- Save the form
- Now an error is generated in the backend when the user submits the form.

The error was caused by submitting a form without a required field, leading
to a `NotNullViolation` during insertion at code line [1]. This was caught as
an `IntegrityError` at code line [2], but since the transaction was not rolled
back (broken transaction), it remained in a failed state. Consequently, a
subsequent operation triggered an `InFailedSqlTransaction` error when
attempting to close the savepoint at code line [3].

This commit will solve the above issue by rolling back the cursor when
the `IntegrityError` error occurs while submitting the form.

[1]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/c21c481eecf11a2e6e8bb21aa907e0aee870e3da/addons/website/controllers/form.py#L77
[2]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/c21c481eecf11a2e6e8bb21aa907e0aee870e3da/addons/website/controllers/form.py#L98
[3]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/c21c481eecf11a2e6e8bb21aa907e0aee870e3da/addons/website/controllers/form.py#L53

Sentry-7260662088,7327198011

Currently when user adds adds quantity in barcode using lots it leads to incorrect sale order quantities.

## Steps to replicate:
- Install Sales and Barcode (no demo data).
- Enable Lots & Serial Numbers in settings.
- Create Test Product with Tracking by Lots.
- Go to Inventory > Products>Lots & Serial Numbers and create 3 lots for the product.
- Update each lot’s on-hand quantity to 10 from the product page.
- Create and confirm a Sales Order for the product (lines: qty 3 and 2 units).
- Open the delivery in the Barcode app:
   - Scan lot 2 > increase qty to 3 using +1 button
   - Scan lot 3 > increase qty to 2 using +1 button
- Validate and go to the sale order.

## Observed Behavior:
The sale order delivered quantities are flipped and a backorder is created even though the quantity for the product is satisfied.

## Root cause:
The issue occurs because when a sales order is confirmed, the system defaults to
 using lot 1 on the delivery receipt. When a user scans lot 2, the `_processBarcode` function is triggered, which calls `_findLine` at [1] to select the appropriate line on the receipt.

As the loop in `_findLine` iterates through `pageLines` with values like: 
```
[{display_name: "Test product", quantity: 3, lot_id: { name: 'lot1' }}, 
{display_name: "Test product", quantity: 2, lot_id: { name: 'lot1' }}]
```

During the first iteration, `foundLine` is set at [2] for the line with quantity 3 . Since the subsequent if condition is not satisfied, the loop hits the continue block at [3].
On the next iteration, the line with quantity 2 causes `foundLine` to be overwritten at [2], and the continue block is executed again at [3].

This results in the line with quantity 2 being selected as the line to update at the end of the function.

When the user manually increases the quantity to 3, the line that originally required quantity 2 is updated and fulfilled.
Later, when lot 3 is scanned, the line that required quantity 3 is selected for update, and manually increasing the quantity to 2 before validating the order leads to a backorder and causes the delivered quantities to be flipped.

[1]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/81eaeb4b18d849c644160234def6c69013591abe/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L1335-L1337 [2]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/81eaeb4b18d849c644160234def6c69013591abe/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L1690-L1699 [3]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/81eaeb4b18d849c644160234def6c69013591abe/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L1727-L1729

## Solution:
Avoid grouping lines from different moves unless using batch transfers. This ensures that backorders are not created when the barcode lines are fulfilled.

opw-5423943

Steps to produce:
---
- Install `website_sale`, `l10n_ca` & `accountant` modules with demo data.
- Switch to a `Canadian (CA) company.`
- Go to Settings and enable` Discounts, Loyalty & Gift Cards`.
- Go to` Website > eCommerce > Loyalty > Discount & Loyalty.`
- Create a new program > Set Program Type to Discount Code > Under Conditional Rules, set Minimum Purchase to 0 > Under Rewards, choose Discount on Order.
- Go to `website > configuration > websites` > Create a new website for the CA company > Set it as default (first in sequence).
- Create new product > Set Sales Taxes to` 14.975% GST + QST` > Publish the product.
- Open the website in an incognito window > Add the product to the cart > Apply the discount code.
- In the main tab > Go to Website > eCommerce > Orders > Open the corresponding order > In the Other Info tab, change the fiscal position to Quebec (QC) > Click to update taxes.

Issue:
---
- The tax on the discount line is split into: 14.975% GST + QST & 9.975% QST.

Root cause:
---
- When a discount is applied in the cart, the discount line initially carries split taxes: 5% GST and 9.975% QST.
- After changing the fiscal position to Quebec (QC), the system replaces 5% GST with 14.975% GST + QST because 5% GST is present in replace of 14.975% GST. so at [1] it replaces 5% GST with 14.975% GST and do nothing for 9.975% QST.
- In 17.0, the discount line directly uses 14.975% GST + QST (no tax splitting), so this issue does not occur.
- In 18.0, at [2], taxes are explicitly split and added to the base line, and the same split taxes are reused during grouping. This leads to multiple taxes being displayed on the sale order line.

Fix:
---
- Avoid splitting taxes on the discount line in the sale order.
- Keep the original tax structure intact to prevent duplication after fiscal position changes.

[1]https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/c6d9fa5873eb759846e9be5b66eedb8b00c5ac11/addons/account/models/partner.py#L151-L156
[2]https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/c6d9fa5873eb759846e9be5b66eedb8b00c5ac11/addons/sale_loyalty/models/sale_order.py#L296

opw-6145674
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

The calendar event for a paid appointment is created from account.move._post() once the invoice is confirmed by the payment transaction. At that point there is no website request, so env.company falls back to the user's default allowed company instead of the company the booking was made on. The attendee invitation mail rendered from the new event then carries that default company's branding in its header and footer rather than the company the customer booked on.

Read the booking's company from the existing record it already carries (its invoice in the direct payment flow, its sale order line in the eCommerce flow added by website_appointment_sale) and re-apply it via with_company when creating the calendar event so the mail layout picks the right company. The lookup is exposed as a hook on calendar.booking so each module can extend it for its own payment record.

Reachable since the feature was added in https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/ce6bc7150457c8f4da331abb359ec99badca5ab3.

Steps to reproduce:
1. In a multi-company environment with two companies A and B, give the staff user access to both with company A as their default.
2. Create a website tied to company B.
3. Activate the Demo payment provider in test mode on both companies.
4. From company B, create an appointment type with an up-front payment, staffed by that user and tied to company B's website.
5. From company B's public website, open the appointment page, pick a slot, fill in the customer info and proceed to payment.
6. Pay via Demo.
7. Open the attendee invitation email in the mail catcher.

=> The email header and footer show company A instead of company B.

Ticket [link](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project.task/5106795)
opw-5106795

*=website_helpdesk_slides_forum,website_helpdesk_forum

Currently an exception is generated when the user tries to open the community
forum of the helpdesk by following steps.

- Install `Website Slides Forum Helpdesk (website_helpdesk_slides_forum)`
- Go to `Helpdesk` > `Configuration` > `Helpdesk team` > `Customer care`
- Set more than one forums inside `Community Forum` and save
- Go to the website  and open `Help` page
- Error will generate when clicking `Ask the community`

First Error:
`QWebError: Error while rendering the template: KeyError: '_forums'`

Second error when we try above step by only installing `website_helpdesk_forum`: `ValueError: View 'website_helpdesk_forum.forum_all' in website 1 not...`

The first error occurs because the code line [1] renders the template
`website_helpdesk_slides_forum.helpdesk_forums` (we will get this template
id from `get_template_xml_id` method (at code line [2])), which inherits from
`website_forum.forum_all_all_entries`. The inherited template expects the
`_forums` variable to be defined. However, since we call the template directly without
providing `_forums`, the template tries to access it and raises a KeyError.

The second error occurs when rendering the `website_helpdesk_forum.forum_all`
template, whose XML ID is retrieved using the `get_template_xml_id` method (see line [3]).
This template does not actually exist, so when the system attempts to load it, the rendering process fails.

This commit resolves the issue by rendering the `website_forum.forum_all`
template instead of the template returned by `get_template_xml_id`, since the
templates returned by that method either do not exist or cannot properly handle
forums. The website_forum.forum_all template is designed to manage all forums,
so it reliably covers the required use case.

[1]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/6658581828dcdc43ffc5823814a05cb936cd0500/website_helpdesk_forum/controllers/website_forum.py#L20-L22
[2]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/6658581828dcdc43ffc5823814a05cb936cd0500/website_helpdesk_slides_forum/controllers/website_forum.py#L9-L10
[3]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/6658581828dcdc43ffc5823814a05cb936cd0500/website_helpdesk_forum/controllers/website_forum.py#L24-L25

sentry-7159323242