Thursday, May 21, 2026
6 changes · saas-18.4
Resolved issues and error corrections
Point of Sale event ticket sales made while offline are now kept locally until the order fully syncs. This prevents paid event orders from reaching the backend without the related ticket registrations after a reload, helping ensure customers receive the tickets they bought.
Original PR description
When selling event tickets in POS while offline, the order could be synced later but without creating event registrations (tickets) after a page reload. Steps to reproduce: ------------------- * Open…
When selling event tickets in POS while offline, the order could be synced later but without creating event registrations (tickets) after a page reload. Steps to reproduce: ------------------- * Open a POS session with `pos_event` * Sell an event ticket * Switch to offline mode * Validate payment while offline (order becomes paid but unsynced) * Reload/close and reopen POS, then reconnect * Let the order sync > Observation: The `pos.order` is created on the backend, but `event.registration` and `event.registration.answer` are missing so tickets are not generated. Why the fix: ------------ `pos_event` used `order.finalized` as IndexedDB cleanup condition for `event.registration` and `event.registration.answer`. For paid-but-unsynced orders, `finalized` is already true, so those records can be removed from IndexedDB too early. After reload, the order is restored/synced but without its event registration payload. Implementation: --------------- Use `order.canBeRemovedFromIndexedDB` instead of `order.finalized` for `event.registration` and `event.registration.answer` retention rules, so records are kept locally until the order is truly synced (server id assigned) or canceled. Test Note: --------------- Use case is hard to simulate exactly. Add a basic unit test to assert both registration models are kept for paid unsynced orders and only removable once synced. opw-6056079 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265201 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#256615
This fix prevents duplicate accounting reconciliation when a sales order includes both a kit and one of its components. It avoids a delivery validation error in Anglo-Saxon automated valuation setups, helping affected sales and inventory flows complete correctly.
Original PR description
Steps to reproduce ----- - Modules: Sale, Purchase, Mrp, Accounting - Enable automatic accounting & anglo-saxon valuation - Create an AVCO Product category (AVCO automatic valuation) - Create a Kit…
Steps to reproduce
-----
- Modules: Sale, Purchase, Mrp, Accounting
- Enable automatic accounting & anglo-saxon valuation
- Create an AVCO Product category (AVCO automatic valuation)
- Create a Kit product storable & AVCO
- Kit bom
- Comp as a component (storable & AVCO)
- Settings > Decimal Accuracy > Product Price > set to 4 digits
- Purchase 3 units of Comp at 3.3333 piece & validate reception
- Make 2 sales for 1 unit of Comp each & validate both deliveries
- Create a SO for 1 Kit and 1 Comp & confirm
- Create & confirm invoice
- Go to the delivery, force quantity on the component and try to validate delivery
> Error message: "You are trying to reconcile some entries that are already reconciled."
/!\ Fun(?) fact: this error doesn't occur if the order of the moves is inverted.
Cause
-----
When the purchase delivery is validated, a stock valuation layer is created for 3 units with a value of 10. As they are sold individually, these 3 units generate a valuation layer for 3.33 per unit summing to 9.99.
When we validate the last delivery, the 0.01 difference is detected and an adjustment is made on the valuation layer in `_prepare_out_svl_vals`.
However this adjustment is made for the product when the invoice line concerns the kit. As a result, the first reconciliation fails and the line is added to the list to be reconciled later.
Then, when handling the line for COMP2, it will successfully reconcile the lines while it is still in the pool to be reconciled, resulting in an error when attempting to reconcile it later.
This is caused by `_stock_account_anglo_saxon_reconcile_valuation` where the `product_stock_moves` only contains the kit move when called with the kit product as argument, but it contains both moves when called with the component itself as argument. This leads to the same AML being reconciled twice.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f0b9f4c234cd0101f5cb259e58620e1cf65bb2b7/addons/stock_account/models/account_move.py#L222-L225
-----
Ticket:
opw-5722072
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263418
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#258013Invoice XML imports now choose taxes that match the country of the journal entry, preventing foreign fiscal-position taxes from being applied by mistake. This helps companies with multiple country tax setups avoid invalid vendor bills and compliance errors.
Original PR description
**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…
**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#265200 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#255848
Payment providers can no longer be assigned directly to branch companies, avoiding checkout and sales order inconsistencies caused by account journal limitations. This keeps payment setup aligned with parent companies and prevents branch-specific provider configurations that could lead to the wrong provider being used.
Original PR description
Issue: --- Branch companies can be selected as payment provider company, which should be restricted due to the limitation on account jounral. Steps to reproduce: 1- Create a branch company. 2- Add a website to the branch company. 3- Enable a payment provider in the parent company. 4- Duplicate the provider for the branch company and set branch as the company. 5- Navigate to the shop and add a product to cart. 6- Checkout and pay. In the SO, you can check that the payment provider from parent is used. Cause: --- This is introduced after https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/b093786714e9e8567cf75abf78ac3d954a3d89b2. That fix ensures providers from parent company to be returned as the branch compatible provider. However, that fix didn't restrict the branch companies to be selected as provider company which we shouldn't allow. #263869 opw-6013978 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#257622
Large invoice amounts now print with the expected number of decimal places instead of showing tiny extra digits. This prevents confusing totals on customer-facing PDFs and improves trust in printed financial documents.
Original PR description
Issue: - Create an invoice with a line having a price of `528,000,000.00` - Print the invoice -> pdf displays `528,000,000.000001` Cause: In `value_to_html` from `ir.qweb.field.float`, we compute the maximum precision that we can get from the value, to avoid parasite digits. The maximum is 15, so if a number has 11 digits, we won't ask for a precision higher than 4. But in `float_round`, they multiple the value with its precision, then add `epsilon` (a small value). So we're now working with a 16 digits float, which is what we want to avoid. Solution: Reduce the maximum precision from one digit before calling `float_round`. opw-6012129 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#260955
Odoo now recognizes Swiss VAT numbers during EDI imports even when the incoming document uses a different format from the partner record. This helps match existing vendors and customers correctly and reduces duplicate partner creation.
Original PR description
### Issue: When importing EDI documents such as Peppol files, Swiss VAT numbers are often provided in a flat format (e.g., CHE530781296TVA), while existing Odoo partners usually store them in the…
### Issue: When importing EDI documents such as Peppol files, Swiss VAT numbers are often provided in a flat format (e.g., CHE530781296TVA), while existing Odoo partners usually store them in the official formatted version (e.g., CHE-530.781.296 TVA) This mismatch prevents proper partner matching and may create duplicate partners during import ### Cause: `_retrieve_partner` lacks Swiss-specific VAT normalization logic in `_import_retrieve_customer_from_vat()` As a result, the matching process fails to: - match formatted and unformatted Swiss VAT numbers - properly handle language suffixes such as `TVA`, `MWST`, or `IVA` If `base_vat` is installed, and the imported XML VAT is `CHE530781296TVA`, a new partner will be created with the structure format `CHE-530.781.296 TVA` As the match won't be made new partner will be created at each import ### Steps to reproduce: - Install `account` - Create a Vendor (Name: Test CH Vendor, Country: Switzerland, Tax ID: CHE-530.781.296 TVA) - Import the bill [CH_bill_to_import.xml](https://github.com/user-attachments/files/27202997/CH_bill_to_import.xml) from the ticket Before the fix, the existing partner is not matched and a duplicate partner is created opw-6072239 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262011