### Issue:

The `Print Label`, `Register Production`, `Register By-products`and `Register Consumed Materials` are all available in the test types at control point creation.

### Expected behavior:

These test types are only meant for manufacturing operations and are supposed to be hidden by the field domain:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/f56aa85b4ad32c5d9ad5593df1366d72e88da0e4/mrp_workorder/models/quality.py#L102-L104 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/00d6cccd75c402378698a6fd11ee2692f2361c7f/mrp_workorder/models/quality.py#L20-L24

### Cause of the issue:

Since saas-18.1: 5ef007a2116e528b796ebe80fb291ba5f1a94c8f domains are optimised into equivalents SQL clause with better sql performances. This optimization results in the following match for boolean fields: 
`('field', '=', True)` -> `('field', 'in', OrderedSet([True]))` 
`('field', '=', False)` -> `('field', ' not in', OrderedSet([True]))`
Because of these:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/82b16e8feb3d60a9a3855e3adb3164ae5a6c041d/odoo/orm/domains.py#L1058-L1079 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/82b16e8feb3d60a9a3855e3adb3164ae5a6c041d/odoo/orm/domains.py#L1215-L1236
Now the issue is that the specific `search_method` of the `allow_registration` field is then called with this optimized domain: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/82b16e8feb3d60a9a3855e3adb3164ae5a6c041d/odoo/orm/domains.py#L860-L866 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/00d6cccd75c402378698a6fd11ee2692f2361c7f/mrp_workorder/models/quality.py#L20-L24
And since `value` is defined as a non empty ordered set in both cases it the search method returns a True leaf as search domain.

opw-5915197

In Python 3.14, the introduction of `annotationlib` changes the standard library's internal import graph. When `inspect` imports `annotationlib`, it subsequently imports `ast`.

Odoo's custom module loader intercepts this `ast` import to execute `odoo._monkeypatches.ast`. Previously, this monkeypatch had a top-level `import logging`. Loading `logging` triggers an import chain (`traceback` -> `_colorize` -> `dataclasses`) that ultimately attempts to call `annotationlib.get_annotations`. Because `annotationlib` is still in the middle of its initial load, this attribute does not exist yet, resulting in an AttributeError.

This commit defers the `logging` import inside the `ast` monkeypatch to the local scope, breaking the circular import chain and allowing Python 3.14 to finish initializing its core modules properly.

Also it cleans up a blocking and unused `logging` import in `_monkeypatches/num2words.py`.

runbot-938481

<hr>

For information, the actual traceback:
```
'Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<string>", line 1, in <module>
  File "/data/src/odoo/odoo/api/__init__.py", line 4, in <module>
    from odoo.orm.identifiers import NewId
  File "/data/src/odoo/odoo/orm/__init__.py", line 20, in <module>
    import odoo.init  # noqa: F401
  File "/data/src/odoo/odoo/init.py", line 23, in <module>
    from .orm.utils import SUPERUSER_ID
  File "/data/src/odoo/odoo/orm/utils.py", line 8, in <module>
    from odoo.tools import SQL
  File "/data/src/odoo/odoo/tools/__init__.py", line 7, in <module>
    from .cache import ormcache, ormcache_context
  File "/data/src/odoo/odoo/tools/cache.py", line 7, in <module>
    from decorator import decorator
  File "/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/decorator.py", line 37, in <module>
    import inspect
  File "/usr/lib/python3.14/inspect.py", line 146, in <module>
    from annotationlib import Format, ForwardRef
  File "/usr/lib/python3.14/annotationlib.py", line 3, in <module>
    import ast
  File "<frozen importlib._bootstrap>", line 1371, in _find_and_load
  File "<frozen importlib._bootstrap>", line 1342, in _find_and_load_unlocked
  File "<frozen importlib._bootstrap>", line 938, in _load_unlocked
  File "/data/src/odoo/odoo/_monkeypatches/__init__.py", line 46, in exec_module
    hook()
  File "/data/src/odoo/odoo/_monkeypatches/__init__.py", line 70, in patch_module
    module = importlib.import_module(f\'.{name}\', __name__)
  File "/usr/lib/python3.14/importlib/__init__.py", line 88, in import_module
    return _bootstrap._gcd_import(name[level:], package, level)
  File "/data/src/odoo/odoo/_monkeypatches/ast.py", line 4, in <module>
    import logging
  File "/usr/lib/python3.14/logging/__init__.py", line 26, in <module>
    import sys, os, time, io, re, traceback, warnings, weakref, collections.abc
  File "/usr/lib/python3.14/traceback.py", line 12, in <module>
    import _colorize
  File "/usr/lib/python3.14/_colorize.py", line 157, in <module>
    @dataclass(frozen=True, kw_only=True)
  File "/usr/lib/python3.14/dataclasses.py", line 1432, in wrap
    return _process_class(cls, init, repr, eq, order, unsafe_hash,
  File "/usr/lib/python3.14/dataclasses.py", line 1041, in _process_class
    cls_annotations = annotationlib.get_annotations(
AttributeError: partially initialized module \'annotationlib\' from \'/usr/lib/python3.14/annotationlib.py\' has no attribute \'get_annotations\' (most likely due to a circular import)
'
```

**Issue**
Reducing the PO quantity after performing a partial receipt, in multi-step receipts warehouse
can incorrectly update the remaining receipt quantity.

**Steps to reproduce**
- Setup 2-route receipt warehouse (Inventory > Configuration > Warehouse Management > Warehouses)
- Create a PO for 35 units and confirm it
- Click on receive products, set received quantity to 10 and create a backorder
- Validate the next transfer
- Go back to the PO and change the quantity to 20
- Check the receipt demand
-> The backorder picking demand become 35 instead of 10

**Cause**
Updating the quantity of a purchase order line, also updates the related picking:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5fc1e34d174f7f61d692d086d0ff65fbfc72b013/addons/purchase_stock/models/purchase_order_line.py#L120
It updates the picking associated to the backorder since the other one is done:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5fc1e34d174f7f61d692d086d0ff65fbfc72b013/addons/purchase_stock/models/purchase_order_line.py#L185-L187
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5fc1e34d174f7f61d692d086d0ff65fbfc72b013/addons/purchase_stock/models/purchase_order_line.py#L197
This ultimately calls:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5fc1e34d174f7f61d692d086d0ff65fbfc72b013/addons/purchase_stock/models/purchase_order_line.py#L228
To compute the new demand for the picking, it retrieves the `move_dest`:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5fc1e34d174f7f61d692d086d0ff65fbfc72b013/addons/purchase_stock/models/purchase_order_line.py#L240
To compute `qty_to_push`:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5fc1e34d174f7f61d692d086d0ff65fbfc72b013/addons/purchase_stock/models/purchase_order_line.py#L247-L249
However, since we are in a 2-route receipt setup, `move_dest` is the move from Input to stock for the done picking.
Thus, `qty_to_push` is `20 - 10 = 10` instead of `20 - 35 = -15`

**Solution**
The previous logic assumes a pull flow, where downstream (move_dest_ids) quantities are always up-to-date and can be used as the source of truth to recompute demand.
In push flows (e.g., multi-step receipts), this assumption does not hold. 
To fix this, we instead base the computation on the quantity of the current moves (qty) if nothing has to be attached. 

**Additional information**
Known limitation: this does not address inconsistencies in return flows. When there're returns, units 
define in the pol and the one define in the sum of the picking can diverge, thus this pr won't fix that.

opw-5512172

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263294
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#248626

### 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.

opw-6125243

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265390

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

The combined query for sale.commission.achievement.report originally performs several bitwise shifts, starting with the max AML ID. This is done to create a composite number ID for the combined IDs.

`MAX(aml.id)::bigint <<20) | max(rules.id)::bigint <<10 | rules.user_id <<10`

This shifts the max aml.id 40 bits to the left.

Example:
Let's say MAX(aml.id) = 1; we will set the other variables to 1, as they often have little impact on the total size of the number.

1 << 20 = 1048576
1048576 | 1 = 1048577
1048577 << 10 = 1099512676352
1099512676352 | 1 = 1099512676353
1099512676353 << 10 = 1152922604119523328

With this format, the highest guaranteed AML ID this query can handle is under 838,861.

The last 10-bit shift is unnecessary and increases the result. If we remove the last shift, the AMD ID this query can handle becomes much higher.

`MAX(aml.id)::bigint <<20) | max(rules.id)::bigint <<10 | rules.user_id`

|  | AML Max | RULES.ID Max |RULES.USER_ID Max|
| --------------------- | ------ | ------ |  ------ | 
| Before | 838,861  | 1,048,576 | 1,024 |
| After | 858,993,459 |1,048,576 | 1,024|

opw-6124026

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#114711

Currently, an error occurs when a user selects a shift template on a planning slot.

**Steps to Reproduce:**

 - Install the `Planning` module with demo data.
 - Create a `Resource Time Off` record with `start` and `end date` separated by more than 
  `1400 days (around 3.9 years)`, and Set the Working Hours field to Standard 40 hours/week.
 - Go to `Planning` > `Configuration` > `Shift Templates`, open an `existing record` or create 
   a `new one`, and set the `Working Days` to more than 1 day.
 - Create a new `planning slot`, Assign the resource `Abigail Peterson`, and select the above 
   `shift template`.

`AttributeError: 'bool' object has no attribute 'replace'`

This error occurs because when the user sets the shift template, the compute method runs to 
calculate the start and end datetimes [1]. It computes the end datetime by adding the template 
duration in working days from the given start datetime using the resource working calendar within 
a searchable range of around 1400 days [2]. During this computation, leaves and non-working days 
are skipped [3]. If no valid working interval is found within the searchable range, then it returns 
False [4], which raises the error [5].

This commit ensures that if plan_days returns False, the computation falls back to the previously 
calculated end date.

[1]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/6ae5d3df6e9305416e4d6f74259cd01753025f42/planning/models/planning.py#L662-L671

[2]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/a439bd305112f6efc752ce900f7782e7faaf7312/addons/resource/models/resource_calendar.py#L826-L835

[3]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/a439bd305112f6efc752ce900f7782e7faaf7312/addons/resource/models/resource_calendar.py#L533-L537

[4]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/a439bd305112f6efc752ce900f7782e7faaf7312/addons/resource/models/resource_calendar.py#L835

[5]- https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/6ae5d3df6e9305416e4d6f74259cd01753025f42/planning/models/planning.py#L653-L654

sentry-7472958590

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117073

Issue is really similar to commit 21877c09863222a237fe99334787ac46935dcca4 except here the compensations 
amls are created in _stock_account_prepare_anglo_saxon_in_lines_vals
because of a difference between bill price and product cost

**Steps to reproduce:**
- create storable product with category standard auto
- on the category, set an account in the field 'price difference account'
- set a cost of 10
- set a purchase tax
- confirm a PO for 1 @ 15 and validate receipt
- create bill, set a date, save
- on the Bill set the total tax at 100 (it's bellow 'untaxed amount'
on the bottom right of the bill and should be 2.25 before you
change it, if the tax is 15%)
- confirm the bill 

**Current behavior:**
tax was reset to 2.25

**Expected behavior:**
It should stay 100 as it was manually set

**Cause of the issue:**
The total tax amount is computed based on the tax lines 
in Journal Items
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/2744396733bb3ad60813e9e093d67192c0d38b36/addons/account/models/account_move.py#L1171
So the problem is actually that a recomputation of the balance
of the tax account.move.line (the one with the account "tax paid" in 
journal items) is triggered when we confirm the Bill.

That's because:
 When we confirm the bill, 
_stock_account_prepare_anglo_saxon_in_lines_vals() creates 
two amls : 
- one debiting 5 on the account set in the field 'price difference 
account'
- one crediting 5 in the stock interim received account
(This makes sense and is there to realign with the fact that, on the 
account move linked to the svl, the amount credited from stock 
interim received is rightfully 10 because that's cost of the product 
and it's a standard price product)

When we create those amls from,  the create method 
from account.move.lines calls super() inside a context manager 
calling _sync_dynamic_lines().
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5583cbcebae00d8122dce5ce929b650929966a90/addons/account/models/account_move_line.py#L1628-L1635
the yield of sync_dynamic_lines() is inside a context manager
calling _sync_tax_lines.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5583cbcebae00d8122dce5ce929b650929966a90/addons/account/models/account_move.py#L3250
Therefore, the first half of sync_tax_lines() (untill the yield) is ran 
before the call to super and the rest (from the yield) is ran 
after the call to super. 
Because we added two lines in the account.move, get_changed_lines
will return those 2 new line and because there is a tax_ids on the new lines
round_from_tax will be False.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5583cbcebae00d8122dce5ce929b650929966a90/addons/account/models/account_move.py#L3034-L3041
Therefore we won't reach continue.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/73d73c5c6606e0b34c754bfc4de035840951dd3b/addons/account/models/account_move.py#L3055-L3059
And the tax line will be recomputed using 
_prepare_tax_line()
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/73d73c5c6606e0b34c754bfc4de035840951dd3b/addons/account/models/account_move.py#L3065

Here is why there is a tax_ids on the new lines : 
The field is precompute so if we don't set a value for 
it, _compute_tax_ids will be ran to compute it.
As the account move on which the lines are added 
is a bill, the tax_ids will the supplier_tax_id of the product.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/73d73c5c6606e0b34c754bfc4de035840951dd3b/addons/account/models/account_move_line.py#L898-L901

**fix**
There is no need for a tax_ids on these lines as they 
are not meant to (and should'nt) impact the taxes.

opw-6014710

### Issue before this commit:
When importing an Italian electronic vendor bill using the AssoSoftware standard, pension fund taxes (Cassa Previdenziale) are not applied to the invoice lines.

### Steps to reproduce the issue:
1. Download Accounting and l10n_it_edi_witholding
2. Change VAT number of IT company with the one in the xml
3. Go to Taxes > 4%F.Pens. > Advanced Options and change Pension Fund Type with TC02
4. Import xml of the ticket in vendor bills
5. P.Fund tax is not assigned

### Cause of the issue:
The issue is caused by the following line:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/669b9b84f4d5c8765dc4b451d5da6a95dbb9ded8/addons/l10n_it_edi_withholding/models/account_move.py#L247 Currently, the parser strictly expects the optional <RiferimentoTesto> tag alongside <TipoDato>AswCassPre</TipoDato>. However, several third-party software providers generate valid XML files containing only the  AswCassPre block without any optional child tags.

### Reason to introduce the fix:
Ensure that the pension fund tax mapped to the line's VAT rate is correctly applied whenever the AswCassPre data type is present, even if the optional reference tags are omitted.

opw-6189225

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