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

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

### 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

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#117394
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#115475

This commit stabilizes the tour flow by ensuring the sliding panel is
fully closed before proceeding to the next step.

Issue:
The tour steps selects a shape, which triggers [hideSlidingPanel]. That
function focuses a `BuilderButton` after a timeout.

This introduced a race condition: if the timeout executes before the
tour interacts with the `OverlayButtons`, the overlay gets hidden due to
the `focusin` event registered on the builder (outside the iframe) [1],
which ultimately hides the overlay buttons.

The issue made the tour undeterministic following commit [2], which
removed several intermediary steps between the shape selection and the
failing step.

Fix:
Wait for the sliding panel to fully close before continuing the tour
flow.

[hideSlidingPanel]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/saas-19.3/addons/html_builder/static/src/core/building_blocks/builder_sliding_panel.js#L73-L81
[1]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/saas-19.3/addons/html_editor/static/src/core/selection_plugin.js#L265
[2]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/fa328f4e1798a9547e9df749c4144478357e1764

runbot-[242702](https://runbot.odoo.com/odoo/error/242702)

## 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#265071
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#245905

**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#117490
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#115285