## **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

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#265192
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262703

The `partner_pages_tree_view` was attempting to modify `activity_ids` field attributes, but this field is added by the mail module in a sibling inheritance branch ([mail.res_partner_view_tree_inherit_mail]), making it unreachable from the [`partnership.view_res_partner_grade_tree`] ancestry chain:
```py
  base.view_partner_tree → partnership.view_res_partner_grade_tree → partner_pages_tree_view
  base.view_partner_tree → mail.res_partner_view_tree_inherit_mail ← activity_ids lives here
```
This caused a ParseError during base module upgrade:
```py
  File "/home/odoo/odoo/odoo/odoo/tools/convert.py", line 639, in _tag_root
    raise ParseError(msg) from None  # Restart with "--log-handler odoo.tools.convert:DEBUG" for complete traceback
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
odoo.tools.convert.ParseError: while parsing /home/odoo/odoo/odoo/odoo/addons/base/views/res_partner_views.xml:13
Error while parsing or validating view:
Element '<field name="activity_ids">' cannot be located in parent view
View error context:
{'file': '/home/odoo/odoo/odoo/odoo/addons/base/views/res_partner_views.xml',
 'line': 1,
 'name': 'Partner Pages List',
 'view': ir.ui.view(2148,),
 'view.model': 'res.partner',
 'view.parent': ir.ui.view(2108,),
 'xmlid': 'website_crm_partner_assign.partner_pages_tree_view'}
```

**Steps to reproduce:**
- In a v19.1 db install `website_crm_partner_assign`
- Go to apps and search base module and click upgrade

**Fix:**
Make the partner view from partnership inherit from the one defined in mail instead of the one defined in base. 

opw-6186684

[mail.res_partner_view_tree_inherit_mail]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/saas-19.3/addons/mail/views/res_partner_views.xml#L58C21-L67
[`partnership.view_res_partner_grade_tree`]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f3b317310b84edb073009f7d15d7fec002f3ccf0/addons/partnership/views/res_partner_views.xml#L48-L57





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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264639

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Install Time Off
2. Go to Accrual Plans and create a new plan with a milestone
3. Set frequency to Weekly and choose a day other than Monday (e.g., Tuesday)
4. Save and check the displayed weekday in the accrual plan level

**Issue:**
The displayed weekday is incorrect (e.g., shows Monday instead of Tuesday).

**Cause:**
Previously, the weekday value was directly displayed using: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b40184ab371f7a4708621ecf7f25b4e2daaae38d/addons/hr_holidays/views/hr_leave_accrual_views.xml#L212-L214 so no conversion was involved.

Now, the value is processed using Luxon. However, the week_day field stores values from 0 (Monday) to 6 (Sunday), while Luxon expects ISO weekday numbers from 1 (Monday) to 7 (Sunday). This mismatch causes an off-by-one error during conversion.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/1b3d0a3c2f794324f8b230a9ae19f097454e3bdd/addons/hr_holidays/models/hr_leave_accrual_plan_level.py#L54-L62

**Solution:**
Adjust the value before passing it to Luxon by adding +1 to match ISO format.

opw-6112614




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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#259054

Steps to reproduce:
===================
1. Enable a second language on the website
2. Add a Table of Content snippet to a page
3. Apply bold (or any inline style) to one of the headings, save
4. Switch to the second language in translation mode
5. Translate the styled heading and save

=> The TOC navbar entry keeps showing the source text on reload.
=> Expected: navbar shows the translated heading text, unstyled.

Cause:
======
When a TOC heading carries inline markup, the server emits the
heading and the navbar entry as two independent translation terms
with different `data-oe-translation-source-sha` values, even though
their textContent matches. A translation written under the heading's
sha therefore never reaches the navbar's slot.

`handleToC` was meant to bridge that by aliasing the navbar span's
sha to the heading's during translation-mode setup, but two issues
prevented it from working in saas-18.4+:

- The TOC navbar lives under `.o_not_editable`, so its translation
  spans were excluded from `findOEditable` and `handleToC` never
  ran on them. The class `o_translation_without_style` was never
  added, and the sha was never aliased.

Solution:
=========
- `prepareTranslation` iterates TOC navbar translation spans
  explicitly, so `handleToC` reaches them despite `findOEditable`
  skipping `.o_not_editable`.
- `handleToC` always tags the navbar span with
  `o_translation_without_style` when a matching heading exists.
- An `after_replication_handlers` hook flags every replicated
  unstyled-translation target as `.o_dirty`, so the replicated
  translation is included in the save.

opw-5950228

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263547
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#260378

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#258911

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#117115
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#111304

**Steps to reproduce:**
* Install `l10n_mx` module.
* Go to Accounting > Assets and create a new asset.
* Attempt to select a Fixed Asset account in the corresponding field.

**Observed behavior:**
* No existing Fixed Asset accounts correctly show up in the selection.
* Even if an asset goes through by force-creating an account, the automatic depreciation flow fails because the depreciation models generate a single yearly entry instead of monthly, and the depreciation/expense accounts have incorrect account types.

**Cause:**
* The chart of accounts had Accumulated Depreciation template accounts (e.g., `171.05.01`) set to `expense_depreciation` instead of `asset_non_current`, rendering them unavailable for the Accumulated Depreciation field.
* The Depreciation Expense accounts (e.g., `613.05.01`) were conversely set as `expense_direct_cost` instead of `expense_depreciation`.
* The main Fixed Asset accounts (e.g., `156.01.01`) were completely missing the explicit mappings for `asset_depreciation_account_id` and `asset_expense_account_id` within the CSV definition.
* The depreciation models in `account.depreciation.model-mx.csv` were configured with a `method_period` of `12`, resulting in yearly rather than standard monthly entries.

**Fix:**
* Modify `account.account-mx.csv` to convert all `171.xx/183.xx` accounts to `asset_non_current` and all `613.xx/614.xx` accounts to `expense_depreciation`.
* Introduce the `asset_depreciation_account_id` and `asset_expense_account_id` columns into the `account.account-mx.csv` file, properly linking each Fixed Asset account to its correct depreciation targets.
* Update `account.depreciation.model-mx.csv` to use a `method_period` of `1` (monthly) and convert the `method_number` logic from yearly durations to full month durations (12, 36, 60, and 120 months respectively) for creating accurately timed entries.

opw-6091214

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#259781

# How to reproduce
- Create 2 MO's A & B, both having the same product_id & bom_id
- Split MO A into two MO's A1 & A2
- Merge MO's A1 & B

# The issue
MO A2 no longer has a production group (visible via Studio).
If the user tries to partially produce the MO and create a backorder, a traceback popup appears with :

"ValueError: max() iterable argument is empty"

# Cause
The traceback is triggered because we use the `max()` function on `self.production_group_id.production_ids` when creating the backorder, but `production_ids` is an empty recordset since `production_group_id` is also empty.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0d8eaeeb971f2f670aebb1b72ed03f4a2d5e0105/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L1936

The production group is empty because when merging two MO's we delete it without paying attention to other remaining links.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/394a30f8a2814d460cfe220b5017e7ac95d8cddc/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L2555

Note : the production groups were introduced by this commit (https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/2713876dbc70d3984e584a9037a2206dcda4e84a)

# Proposed solution
When merging, we unlink the original MO's from their production group.
Then, we check every altered production group : if they are not linked to any MO anymore, we delete them.

opw-6055376

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#256600

## **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

Steps to produce:
---
- Install website_sale module.
- Enable `Comparison Price` from settings.
- Create a product with sales price = 25 and compare price = 25.
- Go to the shop page and search for the product.

Issue:
---
- The strikethrough appears on the compare price (25) even when the compare price equals the sales price.
- The strikethrough should only appear when the compare price is strictly greater than the sales price.

Root cause:
---
- In `_search_render_results_prices` [1], the condition only checks for the presence of `compare_list_price` in `combination_info`, without verifying that it is actually greater than the sales price. This causes the strikethrough to render even when both prices are equal.

Solution:
---
- Added a strict greater-than check on compare price against the sales price, aligning with the existing behavior already implemented for the product page [2].

Before:
---
<img width="537" height="98" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/a1524f0f-4a59-4daf-ac7d-834604710492" />

After:
---
<img width="538" height="95" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/1e32269b-13c0-469b-9d1f-e6d6ced97fdd" />


[1]https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/4ca059731f97d0f9bce4863cf195fd68a755717e/addons/website_sale/models/product_template.py#L831-L834
[2]https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/4ca059731f97d0f9bce4863cf195fd68a755717e/addons/website_sale/views/templates.xml#L1340-L1346

opw-6178129
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265004
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262434

Steps to reproduce:
===================
1. Configure website with at least 1 language installed different from English. ex: English and French.
2. As anonymous user, change wehbsite language and make a donation via the donation snippet.
3. Check the outgoing confirmation email.

=> Email body is rendered in English.

Cause:
======
The donation confirmation email rendered with `self.partner_id.lang`. For anonymous donors, `partner_id` is the website's shared public user partner, so every anonymous donor received the email in whatever language was set on that partner (or English if unset), regardless of the language they were browsing in.

Solution:
=========
`payment.transaction` already has a `partner_lang` field auto-filled from `partner.lang` at creation.
- override it in the `/donation/transaction` controller with `request.env.lang`
when the public partner is used, capturing the request language at donation time (also works later from `_cron_post_process`, which has no request context);
- render `_send_donation_email` using `self.partner_lang` instead of `self.partner_id.lang`.

opw-5875338


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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#259351

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#258911

The `partner_pages_tree_view` was attempting to modify `activity_ids` field attributes, but this field is added by the mail module in a sibling inheritance branch ([mail.res_partner_view_tree_inherit_mail]), making it unreachable from the [`partnership.view_res_partner_grade_tree`] ancestry chain:
```py
  base.view_partner_tree → partnership.view_res_partner_grade_tree → partner_pages_tree_view
  base.view_partner_tree → mail.res_partner_view_tree_inherit_mail ← activity_ids lives here
```
This caused a ParseError during base module upgrade:
```py
  File "/home/odoo/odoo/odoo/odoo/tools/convert.py", line 639, in _tag_root
    raise ParseError(msg) from None  # Restart with "--log-handler odoo.tools.convert:DEBUG" for complete traceback
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
odoo.tools.convert.ParseError: while parsing /home/odoo/odoo/odoo/odoo/addons/base/views/res_partner_views.xml:13
Error while parsing or validating view:
Element '<field name="activity_ids">' cannot be located in parent view
View error context:
{'file': '/home/odoo/odoo/odoo/odoo/addons/base/views/res_partner_views.xml',
 'line': 1,
 'name': 'Partner Pages List',
 'view': ir.ui.view(2148,),
 'view.model': 'res.partner',
 'view.parent': ir.ui.view(2108,),
 'xmlid': 'website_crm_partner_assign.partner_pages_tree_view'}
```

**Steps to reproduce:**
- In a v19.1 db install `website_crm_partner_assign`
- Go to apps and search base module and click upgrade

**Fix:**
Make the partner view from partnership inherit from the one defined in mail instead of the one defined in base. 

opw-6186684

[mail.res_partner_view_tree_inherit_mail]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/saas-19.3/addons/mail/views/res_partner_views.xml#L58C21-L67
[`partnership.view_res_partner_grade_tree`]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f3b317310b84edb073009f7d15d7fec002f3ccf0/addons/partnership/views/res_partner_views.xml#L48-L57





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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264639

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Install Time Off
2. Go to Accrual Plans and create a new plan with a milestone
3. Set frequency to Weekly and choose a day other than Monday (e.g., Tuesday)
4. Save and check the displayed weekday in the accrual plan level

**Issue:**
The displayed weekday is incorrect (e.g., shows Monday instead of Tuesday).

**Cause:**
Previously, the weekday value was directly displayed using: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b40184ab371f7a4708621ecf7f25b4e2daaae38d/addons/hr_holidays/views/hr_leave_accrual_views.xml#L212-L214 so no conversion was involved.

Now, the value is processed using Luxon. However, the week_day field stores values from 0 (Monday) to 6 (Sunday), while Luxon expects ISO weekday numbers from 1 (Monday) to 7 (Sunday). This mismatch causes an off-by-one error during conversion.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/1b3d0a3c2f794324f8b230a9ae19f097454e3bdd/addons/hr_holidays/models/hr_leave_accrual_plan_level.py#L54-L62

**Solution:**
Adjust the value before passing it to Luxon by adding +1 to match ISO format.

opw-6112614




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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#259054

**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 employee 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

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#117115
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#111304

Steps to produce:
---
- Install website_sale module.
- Enable `Comparison Price` from settings.
- Create a product with sales price = 25 and compare price = 25.
- Go to the shop page and search for the product.

Issue:
---
- The strikethrough appears on the compare price (25) even when the compare price equals the sales price.
- The strikethrough should only appear when the compare price is strictly greater than the sales price.

Root cause:
---
- In `_search_render_results_prices` [1], the condition only checks for the presence of `compare_list_price` in `combination_info`, without verifying that it is actually greater than the sales price. This causes the strikethrough to render even when both prices are equal.

Solution:
---
- Added a strict greater-than check on compare price against the sales price, aligning with the existing behavior already implemented for the product page [2].

Before:
---
<img width="537" height="98" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/a1524f0f-4a59-4daf-ac7d-834604710492" />

After:
---
<img width="538" height="95" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/1e32269b-13c0-469b-9d1f-e6d6ced97fdd" />


[1]https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/4ca059731f97d0f9bce4863cf195fd68a755717e/addons/website_sale/models/product_template.py#L831-L834
[2]https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/4ca059731f97d0f9bce4863cf195fd68a755717e/addons/website_sale/views/templates.xml#L1340-L1346

opw-6178129
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265004
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262434

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Install Time Off
2. Go to Accrual Plans and create a new plan with a milestone
3. Set frequency to Weekly and choose a day other than Monday (e.g., Tuesday)
4. Save and check the displayed weekday in the accrual plan level

**Issue:**
The displayed weekday is incorrect (e.g., shows Monday instead of Tuesday).

**Cause:**
Previously, the weekday value was directly displayed using: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b40184ab371f7a4708621ecf7f25b4e2daaae38d/addons/hr_holidays/views/hr_leave_accrual_views.xml#L212-L214 so no conversion was involved.

Now, the value is processed using Luxon. However, the week_day field stores values from 0 (Monday) to 6 (Sunday), while Luxon expects ISO weekday numbers from 1 (Monday) to 7 (Sunday). This mismatch causes an off-by-one error during conversion.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/1b3d0a3c2f794324f8b230a9ae19f097454e3bdd/addons/hr_holidays/models/hr_leave_accrual_plan_level.py#L54-L62

**Solution:**
Adjust the value before passing it to Luxon by adding +1 to match ISO format.

opw-6112614




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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#259054

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#117115
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#111304

# How to reproduce
- Create 2 MO's A & B, both having the same product_id & bom_id
- Split MO A into two MO's A1 & A2
- Merge MO's A1 & B

# The issue
MO A2 no longer has a production group (visible via Studio).
If the user tries to partially produce the MO and create a backorder, a traceback popup appears with :

"ValueError: max() iterable argument is empty"

# Cause
The traceback is triggered because we use the `max()` function on `self.production_group_id.production_ids` when creating the backorder, but `production_ids` is an empty recordset since `production_group_id` is also empty.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0d8eaeeb971f2f670aebb1b72ed03f4a2d5e0105/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L1936

The production group is empty because when merging two MO's we delete it without paying attention to other remaining links.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/394a30f8a2814d460cfe220b5017e7ac95d8cddc/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L2555

Note : the production groups were introduced by this commit (https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/2713876dbc70d3984e584a9037a2206dcda4e84a)

# Proposed solution
When merging, we unlink the original MO's from their production group.
Then, we check every altered production group : if they are not linked to any MO anymore, we delete them.

opw-6055376

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#256600

### Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses: 
**Issue**: During KSeF authentication, some foreign qualified certificates causes a crash with error _"Failed to authenticate with XAdES: 400 Client Error: Bad Request for url: https://api.ksef.mf.gov.pl/v2/auth/xades-signature"_ This is due to Odoo not handling different `SubjectIdentifierType`

**Solution**: Implement a try/except block to safely check for the NIP in the certificate's subject string, defaulting the identifier type to `certificateFingerprint` when the NIP is missing or a ValueError is caught.

### Current behavior before PR:
The `SubjectIdentifierType` is hardcoded as `certificateSubject`, and does not handle `certificateFingerprint` at all. This causes there to be an error when trying to authenticate with the KSeF server using XAdES signature.

### Desired behavior after PR is merged:

The sign_authentication_challenge method will now safely evaluate the subject string. It assigns `certificateSubject` only if the NIP is verified to be in the subject string. If the NIP is absent or a ValueError occurs during parsing, the system safely falls back to using `certificateFingerprint`. This prevents tracebacks and ensures the correct XML payload is sent to the KSeF server.

Ticket [link](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project.task/6125243)
opw-6125243

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264851

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Create a company in Belgium and set the fiscal localisation accordingly.
- In the same company, create a fiscal position in Switzerland, set the foreign tax ID and then generate the taxes for it.
- Install the module account_edi_ubl_cii.
- Create and invoice for a belgian customer, with one product line having a 0% tax.
- Export the invoice as XML.
- Go to taxes, filter by purchase, and make sure that the 0% switzerland tax has a higher sequence than the belgian 0% tax.
- Import the previous invoice XML as a vendor bill.

**Issue:**
After importing the bill, the switzerland tax is used even though the fiscal localisation is belgian, which is wrong as it violates the constraint _validate_taxes_country

**Solution:**
Added a more selective domain to _import_fill_invoice_line_taxes

opw-5467936
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263560
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#255848

### *Why this commit*: 
---
Ensures Quality Checks Shop Floor regardless of the "Auto-close Production" setting.

### *Steps to Reproduce*
---
1. Define a product tracked by Serial Numbers with a Manufacturing BoM.

2. Create a Quality Control Point for the product on the Manufacturing
operation.

3. In Inventory Configuration, disable "Auto-close Production" on the
Manufacturing operation type.

4. Create a Manufacturing Order (MO) and open it in the Shop Floor view.

5. If the MO has no operations, try to use Mass Produce.

### *Before this PR*
---
When auto_close_production was set to False, the Shop Floor card footer
incorrectly hid  the Quality Checks button.
This blocked users completing mandatory
quality check steps.



### *After this PR*
---
The visibility logic for Shop Floor actions is now decoupled from the closing
permission. The workflow follows this corrected sequence:

Quality Checks: Remain accessible to ensure all mandatory tests are
passed before production progresses.

Close Production: Only appears if "Auto-close Production" is enabled
on the operation type.

Mass Produce: allow serial registration and backorder
creation even if the MO cannot be closed from the Shop Floor.


OPW: 5473839

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#103926

**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

When generating a VAT return with an unclaimed tax amount carried to the
next month, the carryover reimbursement move amounts are computed with
an incorrect ratio.

Steps to reproduce:
- Create and post a bill in May containing a VAT amount.
- Create and post a bill in June containing a VAT amount.
- Create a VAT return for May to carry over the VAT amount to the next
  month.
- Create a VAT return for June, requesting the full VAT amount to be
  reimbursed.
- Validate and send the June VAT return.
- Check the generated reimbursement move

Issue: Line values does not correspond to anything real/tangible.  It
occurs because when computing the ratio for the move we check the last
tax report entry, where we find the amount of tax from the past months
and a line balancing the last month that should not be taken into
account.  The "Balance tax current account (receivable)" line from the
tax closing entry is mistakenly picked up as a tax carried forward line,
throwing off the amounts.

opw-5961836

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#116822
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#115451