**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#265129
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262179

Issue:
------
`l10n_br.address_form_fields` inherits from `portal.address_form_fields` but targets a `<select>` element that was moved to `portal_address_extended.address_extended_form_fields` in [saas~19.2].

Traceback:
----------
```py
Error while parsing or validating view:

Element '<xpath expr="//select[@name=&#39;city_id&#39;]/option[not(@value=&#39;&#39;)]">' cannot be located in parent view
```

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
1. Install `l10n_br` in v19
2. Upgrade to v19.2
3. Upgrade the `l10n_br` module →  Traceback

Root cause:
-----------
The view is adapting an element owned by a sibling view, making the inheritance hierarchy conceptually wrong and fragile.

Solution:
---------
Update the `inherit_id` of `l10n_br.address_form_fields` to `portal_address_extended.address_extended_form_fields` so it correctly inherits from the view that owns the targeted element.

opw: [6125901]

[saas~19.2]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/026c6f9f2a388ee509a135c53e38f5bb3d08ff73
[6125901]: https://www.odoo.com/odoo/70/tasks/6125901?debug=1

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264045

### Issue before this commit:
In the previous implementation, several Italian taxes, specifically the 4% INPS and the 4% Pension Fund (F.Pens), were not correctly initialized. Although the relevant EDI data was present in the source CSV templates, it was missing from the actual tax records in the database.

### Steps to reproduce the issue:
1. Download Accounting and l10n_it_edi
2. Go to Accounting -> Taxes
3. Open 4% INPS tax and 4% F.Pens and go to Advanced Options tab and see that no Pension Fund Type is associated by default

### Cause of the issue:
While moving the witholding data from l10n_it_edi to l10n_it in this commit https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/40e09ca01242 the templates were not correcly rendered and set up.

### Reason to introduce the fix:
For a tax to be correctly recognized from the XML, it is essential that we have the corresponding tax already configured in Odoo, including the specific type. We should have at least these two taxes fully configured so the system can elaborate them correctly when imported from vendor bills.

opw-6093221

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#258947

When updating a mo, if the new component has a multilvl bom, it will only create a mo for the direct child and not the next

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
* Create a products "Main", "Final", "Semi", "Raw"
* Create a Bom for "Final" with "Semi" as component
* Create a Bom for "Semi" with "Raw as component
* Add MTO on Final and Semi
* Create a MO for Main with no components and confirm it
* Add "Final" to the mo as component as save. -> The MO for "Final" is correctly created with "Semi" as component but there is no MO for "Semi" with "Raw" as component.

Observation:
-------------

When updating de MO, it will write the new SM (Final) to the production, and we will call ```_autoconfirm_production``` with ```no_procurement```: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/6fb69b5640743d3bc7bb52c73cb27da428f2451c/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L1051 Where we will directly confirm the sm (```_action_confirm```).

From the SM ```_action_confirm``` we will create and run a procurement (manufacture in our case).
From the manufacture we will create the new move line for Semi and go through ```action_confirm``` on the manufacturing order:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/9ef76a4d6010191ab7ab1a0d1085972901280dda/addons/mrp/models/stock_rule.py#L116-L118
In the MO ```action_confirm```, we will confirm the move and should create new procurement for the moves that need them, but, since in our case we have ```no_procurement``` in the context, we will set ```create_proc``` to false:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/9ef76a4d6010191ab7ab1a0d1085972901280dda/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L1635
Since ```create_proc``` is false we will not create a procurement for those move lines:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/6fb69b5640743d3bc7bb52c73cb27da428f2451c/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1557-L1558
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/6fb69b5640743d3bc7bb52c73cb27da428f2451c/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1571-L1580

opw-6005675

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#258153

Issue
-----
`REF` field of Fedex labels is missing.

Steps to reproduce
-----
- Setup Fedex
- Create a product (set weight)
- Create a delivery for the product
	- Set carrier as Fedex
- Validate delivery
- Opend the label

> REF field is empty

Cause
-----
When filling the `CustomerReferences`, we only specify the SO

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/aae680f5b86fa87193ba6616e8431eed985b2ee7/delivery_fedex_rest/models/fedex_request.py#L309-L313

The `REF` field is populated using `CUSTOMER_REFERENCE` references, which is not present in this case.

Excerpt of the API DOC
-----
```
"CustomerReference": {
	"type": "object",
	"properties": {
		"customerReferenceType": {
			"type": "string",
			"description": [...],
			"example": "DEPARTMENT_NUMBER",
			"enum": [
				"CUSTOMER_REFERENCE",
				"DEPARTMENT_NUMBER",
				"INVOICE_NUMBER",
				"P_O_NUMBER",
				"INTRACOUNTRY_REGULATORY_REFERENCE",
				"RMA_ASSOCIATION"
			]
		},
		"value": {
			"type": "string",
			"description": [...],
			"example": "3686"
		}
	}
},
```

[...] replaces long description strings, refer to API for full documentation.

Result after fix
-----
<img width="477" height="738" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/0d3a0786-5b7d-41cc-8548-2dc7b0f379ab" />

-----
Ticket:
opw-6101620

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#116870

Before this commit, finding a bom for a recordset of `products` involved looping over all the boms and it will loop over all the `product_variant_ids` of `bom.product_tmpl_id` if the bom's `product_id` is NULL. This approach might loop over variants which we are not trying to find a bom for. In additon to that, due to the fact that multiple boms might have the same `product_tmpl_id`, this approach might consider the same variants in the inner loop redundantly even though we matched the variant with a bom in a previous itration.

Worst case, this might result in a time complexity of $O(N * M)$ where N is the number of boms and M is the number of variants.

To improve the performance, I only considered the variants given in the paramater `products` and in addition to that, I created a new dictionary mapping a `product_tmpl_id` to its bom if the bom doesn't have a variant set. By doing this, I can loop over the `products` given and if it doesn't have a bom set then it will be set to the one its template had taken from the previos loop.

In a method call with the following constraints
    - **2** products the method was finding a bom for
    - The 2 products had the same template and the template contained **550** active variants
    - The boms were only related to the template rather than the variants themselves.

| Input Size | Before | After |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 100 | 0.78s | 0.03s |
| 1000 | 8.53s | 0.11s |
| 10000 | 80.99s | 0.73s |

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#247465

When generating a quotation for a recurring plan, if the quotation uses the DIN5008 template, the recurring plan is not shown in the report.

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
* Make sure l10n_din5008 is installed
* Create a Swiss company
* Go to the subscription app and create an order with a recurring plan
* Print the quotation
> Observation: The recurring plan is not shown in the report.

Why the fix:
------------
We add a new scss rule to make sure the recurring plan is always shown in the report.
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/fb2eb6cfdc4527e102dd22321975ab3f0d24b88b/sale_subscription/views/subscription_templates.xml#L7-L23

Before:
<img width="790" height="677" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/342753fa-9655-41ac-a958-f94f6ae2b6c7" />

After:
<img width="808" height="756" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/4ed726c5-0702-48ee-8578-8b0d2c0f4e55" />


opw-5960219

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#261727

Steps to reproduce:
===================
1. Go to the shop page and use the rental date picker to select a start and end date with hours.
2. Find a rental product configured with "Days" pricing.
3. Add to card directly from the product card
4. Add a rental product from product image that has date type value date
5. Go to that product details page.
6. Click add to cart

-> Invalid operation, You cannot mix different rental periods...

Cause:
======
When adding a product from the shop list view, the system uses the default start/end dates (from the rental period) exactly as first added.

However, the "Add to Cart" logic on the product details page attempts to adapt the selected dates to the product's specific rental unit (e.g., normalizing the time component for 'Day' pricing).

This re-calculation creates a timestamp mismatch between the item already in the cart (from the shop view) and the new item being added (from the details page).

Solution:
=========
The add-to-cart flow has been updated to correctly utilize the default duration values (the globally selected dates) if they exist.

opw-5450576

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117058
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#103373

Currently, an error occurs when users click on View GROSS/PPH21/JHT/JP History to see historical payslip line values.

Steps to Reproduce:
 - Install the `l10n_id_hr_payroll` module with demo data.
 - Switch to the `Indonesian` company.
 - Go to `Employees` and open an `existing record or create a new one`.
 - Click on `GROSS/PPH21/JHT/JP History` button.

`ValueError: External ID not found in the system: hr_payroll.act_contribution_reg_payslip_lines`

The issue occurs because, in [this commit], the act_contribution_reg_payslip_lines window action 
was removed. However, when viewing historical lines, and it still tries to retrieve this action using 
its XML ID [1] and then updates its domain, context, and views. As a result, it raises an error due 
to the missing XML ID.

This commit ensures that the method returns a standalone window action dictionary instead of 
relying on the removed window action record.

[this commit]: http://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/112571/changes/7094cdc033591258cae7c7df46888c29eaae6248

[1]- https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/103500a805d1ffc1185ed639d613c2d1ede492cb/l10n_id_hr_payroll/models/hr_employee.py#L17-L24

sentry-7489148694

__
## Short functional explanation of the error
While investigating for bug reported on ticket 6036064, I found this other bug. It only occurs when hr_attendance and
hr_work_entry_attendance are both installed.
When setting an attendance for an employee that has a check-in date but no check-out date, and running the scheduled action `Automatically check-out employees`, an `expected singleton` error occurs.

## Reproduction Steps
1. Install hr_work_entry_attendance.
2. Create an Employee. In the Payroll tab, set a start date for the contract. In the Settings tab, make sure their timezone is set to Brussels, and set the Overtime Ruleset field to Default Ruleset.
3. In Settings, check the Automatic Check-out box.
4. Go to Attendances. Create an attendance for the employee you just created. Set a Check-in date to 8 am on April 17th, for example, and leave the check-out field empty.
5. Open Scheduled Actions. Search the action Automatically check-out employees and click Run Manually.

### Expected behavior
The attendance check-out should be set at the end of April 17th.

### Unexpected behavior
An error occurs:
`Expected singleton: hr.attendance.overtime.line(39, 40)`

## Origin of the issue
When the attendance goes over several days, we set the check-out date to:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b293ce50e0fc9355ffd233557f079916b514eac7/addons/hr_attendance/models/hr_attendance.py#L618 This is a Naive date. However, it will later be considered as a UTC date. Because the employee's timezone is Brussels, this time will be transformed to 2 am next day when we retrieve attendance intervals. This will result in the creation of overtime entries for both days, causing the Expected Singleton error.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b293ce50e0fc9355ffd233557f079916b514eac7/addons/hr_attendance/models/hr_attendance.py#L687 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b293ce50e0fc9355ffd233557f079916b514eac7/addons/hr_attendance/models/hr_attendance.py#L667-L672 In our case, `self.check_in` = April 17th at 06:00:00 and `self.check_out` = April 17th at 23:59:59. Converted, we will obtain April 17th at 08:00:00 and April 18th at 1:59:59.
Because of that, at the return:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b293ce50e0fc9355ffd233557f079916b514eac7/addons/hr_attendance/models/hr_attendance.py#L706-L709 We will return a dict containing 2 intervals: one for 17th April and one for 18th April.
We will then create overtime entries with such attendances: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b293ce50e0fc9355ffd233557f079916b514eac7/addons/hr_attendance/models/hr_attendance.py#L333 leading to the creation of 2 different overtimes for the same attendance.
So, when we retrieve the overtime for that attendance: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/2d2056766441157dc45ebc37b677841c44e5c513/hr_work_entry_attendance/models/hr_version.py#L185, We get the 2. Thus when trying to access their status with: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/2d2056766441157dc45ebc37b677841c44e5c513/hr_work_entry_attendance/models/hr_version.py#L191 An Expected Singleton Occurs.
__
opw-6036064

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262257

__
## Short functional explanation of the error
While investigating for bug reported on ticket 6036064, I found this other bug. It only occurs when hr_attendance and
hr_work_entry_attendance are both installed.
When setting an attendance for an employee that has a check-in date but no check-out date, and running the scheduled action `Automatically check-out employees`, an `expected singleton` error occurs.

## Reproduction Steps
1. Install hr_work_entry_attendance.
2. Create an Employee. In the Payroll tab, set a start date for the contract. In the Settings tab, make sure their timezone is set to Brussels, and set the Overtime Ruleset field to Default Ruleset.
3. In Settings, check the Automatic Check-out box.
4. Go to Attendances. Create an attendance for the employee you just created. Set a Check-in date to 8 am on April 17th, for example, and leave the check-out field empty.
5. Open Scheduled Actions. Search the action Automatically check-out employees and click Run Manually.

### Expected behavior
The attendance check-out should be set at the end of April 17th.

### Unexpected behavior
An error occurs:
`Expected singleton: hr.attendance.overtime.line(39, 40)`

## Origin of the issue
When the attendance goes over several days, we set the check-out date to:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b293ce50e0fc9355ffd233557f079916b514eac7/addons/hr_attendance/models/hr_attendance.py#L618 This is a Naive date. However, it will later be considered as a UTC date. Because the employee's timezone is Brussels, this time will be transformed to 2 am next day when we retrieve attendance intervals. This will result in the creation of overtime entries for both days, causing the Expected Singleton error.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b293ce50e0fc9355ffd233557f079916b514eac7/addons/hr_attendance/models/hr_attendance.py#L687 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b293ce50e0fc9355ffd233557f079916b514eac7/addons/hr_attendance/models/hr_attendance.py#L667-L672 In our case, `self.check_in` = April 17th at 06:02:00 and `self.check_out` = April 17th at 23:59:59. Converted, we will obtain April 17th at 08:02:00 and April 18th at 1:59:59.
Because of that, at the return:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b293ce50e0fc9355ffd233557f079916b514eac7/addons/hr_attendance/models/hr_attendance.py#L706 We will return a dict containing 2 intervals: one for 17th April and one for 18th April.
We will then create overtime entries with such attendances: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b293ce50e0fc9355ffd233557f079916b514eac7/addons/hr_attendance/models/hr_attendance.py#L333 leading to the creation of 2 different overtimes for the same attendance.
So, when we retrieve the overtime for that attendance: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/2d2056766441157dc45ebc37b677841c44e5c513/hr_work_entry_attendance/models/hr_version.py#L185, We get the 2. Thus when trying to access their status with: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/2d2056766441157dc45ebc37b677841c44e5c513/hr_work_entry_attendance/models/hr_version.py#L191 An Expected Singleton Occurs.
__
opw-6036064

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#115828

### 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

### Issue before this commit:
In the previous implementation, several Italian taxes, specifically the 4% INPS and the 4% Pension Fund (F.Pens), were not correctly initialized. Although the relevant EDI data was present in the source CSV templates, it was missing from the actual tax records in the database.

### Steps to reproduce the issue:
1. Download Accounting and l10n_it_edi
2. Go to Accounting -> Taxes
3. Open 4% INPS tax and 4% F.Pens and go to Advanced Options tab and see that no Pension Fund Type is associated by default

### Cause of the issue:
While moving the witholding data from l10n_it_edi to l10n_it in this commit https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/40e09ca01242 the templates were not correcly rendered and set up.

### Reason to introduce the fix:
For a tax to be correctly recognized from the XML, it is essential that we have the corresponding tax already configured in Odoo, including the specific type. We should have at least these two taxes fully configured so the system can elaborate them correctly when imported from vendor bills.

opw-6093221

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#258947

When updating a mo, if the new component has a multilvl bom, it will only create a mo for the direct child and not the next

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
* Create a products "Main", "Final", "Semi", "Raw"
* Create a Bom for "Final" with "Semi" as component
* Create a Bom for "Semi" with "Raw as component
* Add MTO on final and Semi
* Create a MO for Main with no components and confirm it
* Add "Final" to the mo as component as save. -> The MO for "Final" is correctly created with "Semi" as component but there is no MO for "Semi" with "Raw" as component.

Observation:
-------------

When updating de MO, it will write the new SM (Final) to the production, and we will call ```_autoconfirm_production``` with ```no_procurement```: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/6fb69b5640743d3bc7bb52c73cb27da428f2451c/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L1051 Where we will directly confirm the sm (```_action_confirm```).

From the SM ```_action_confirm``` we will create and run a procurement (manufacture in our case).
From the manufacture we will create the new move line for Semi and go through ```action_confirm``` on the manufacturing order:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/9ef76a4d6010191ab7ab1a0d1085972901280dda/addons/mrp/models/stock_rule.py#L116-L118
In the MO ```action_confirm```, we will confirm the move and should create new procurement for the moves that need them, but, since in our case we have ```no_procurement``` in the context, we will set ```create_proc``` to false:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/9ef76a4d6010191ab7ab1a0d1085972901280dda/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L1635
Since ```create_proc``` is false we will not create a procurement for those move lines:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/6fb69b5640743d3bc7bb52c73cb27da428f2451c/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1557-L1558
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/6fb69b5640743d3bc7bb52c73cb27da428f2451c/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1571-L1580

opw-6005675

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#258153

Steps to reproduce:
===================
1. Go to the shop page and use the rental date picker to select a start and end date with hours.
2. Find a rental product configured with "Days" pricing.
3. Add to card directly from the product card
4. Add a rental product from product image that has date type value date
5. Go to that product details page.
6. Click add to cart

-> Invalid operation, You cannot mix different rental periods...

Cause:
======
When adding a product from the shop list view, the system uses the default start/end dates (from the rental period) exactly as first added.

However, the "Add to Cart" logic on the product details page attempts to adapt the selected dates to the product's specific rental unit (e.g., normalizing the time component for 'Day' pricing).

This re-calculation creates a timestamp mismatch between the item already in the cart (from the shop view) and the new item being added (from the details page).

Solution:
=========
The add-to-cart flow has been updated to correctly utilize the default duration values (the globally selected dates) if they exist.

opw-5450576

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117058
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#103373

Issue
-----
`REF` field of Fedex labels is missing.

Steps to reproduce
-----
- Setup Fedex
- Create a product (set weight)
- Create a delivery for the product
	- Set carrier as Fedex
- Validate delivery
- Opend the label

> REF field is empty

Cause
-----
When filling the `CustomerReferences`, we only specify the SO

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/aae680f5b86fa87193ba6616e8431eed985b2ee7/delivery_fedex_rest/models/fedex_request.py#L309-L313

The `REF` field is populated using `CUSTOMER_REFERENCE` references, which is not present in this case.

Excerpt of the API DOC
-----
```
"CustomerReference": {
	"type": "object",
	"properties": {
		"customerReferenceType": {
			"type": "string",
			"description": [...],
			"example": "DEPARTMENT_NUMBER",
			"enum": [
				"CUSTOMER_REFERENCE",
				"DEPARTMENT_NUMBER",
				"INVOICE_NUMBER",
				"P_O_NUMBER",
				"INTRACOUNTRY_REGULATORY_REFERENCE",
				"RMA_ASSOCIATION"
			]
		},
		"value": {
			"type": "string",
			"description": [...],
			"example": "3686"
		}
	}
},
```

[...] replaces long description strings, refer to API for full documentation.

Result after fix
-----
<img width="477" height="738" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/0d3a0786-5b7d-41cc-8548-2dc7b0f379ab" />

-----
Ticket:
opw-6101620

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#116870

**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

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#117851
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117073

Before this commit, finding a bom for a recordset of `products` involved looping over all the boms and it will loop over all the `product_variant_ids` of `bom.product_tmpl_id` if the bom's `product_id` is NULL. This approach might loop over variants which we are not trying to find a bom for. In additon to that, due to the fact that multiple boms might have the same `product_tmpl_id`, this approach might consider the same variants in the inner loop redundantly even though we matched the variant with a bom in a previous itration.

Worst case, this might result in a time complexity of $O(N * M)$ where N is the number of boms and M is the number of variants.

To improve the performance, I only considered the variants given in the paramater `products` and in addition to that, I created a new dictionary mapping a `product_tmpl_id` to its bom if the bom doesn't have a variant set. By doing this, I can loop over the `products` given and if it doesn't have a bom set then it will be set to the one its template had taken from the previos loop.

In a method call with the following constraints
    - **2** products the method was finding a bom for
    - The 2 products had the same template and the template contained **550** active variants
    - The boms were only related to the template rather than the variants themselves.

| Input Size | Before | After |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 100 | 0.78s | 0.03s |
| 1000 | 8.53s | 0.11s |
| 10000 | 80.99s | 0.73s |

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#247465

**Problem:**
change of standard price on a product valued by lot 
and with standard price category does not work

**Steps to reproduce:**
- create a storable product tracked and valued by lot
- set category as standard price
- set a cost of 10 and save
- click on the quantity smart button and then "update quantity"
- add a quantity of 1 in a new lot
- on the product form, change the cost to 12 and save
- reload the page

**Current behavior:**
the cost is back to 10

**Expected behavior:**
it should stay 12

**Cause of the issue:**
when we change the standard_price of the product, 
_change_standard_price() is called from the write method
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/eaa6c4352aec2be8519360c282f3f6504a2f263c/addons/stock_account/models/product.py#L293

Inside _change_standard_price(): 
step 1: a new product.value is created
step 2 : we set the standard_price of the lots to be the same 
as the one of the product
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/eaa6c4352aec2be8519360c282f3f6504a2f263c/addons/stock_account/models/product.py#L319-L323

In the create method for product.value (step 1), we call _set_value() 
on the moves with a remaining quantity
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/eaa6c4352aec2be8519360c282f3f6504a2f263c/addons/stock_account/models/product_value.py#L95
At the end of set_value we call _update_standard_price() on 
our product
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/eaa6c4352aec2be8519360c282f3f6504a2f263c/addons/stock_account/models/stock_move.py#L337

Because the product is lot_valuated we update the standard_price 
based on the avg_cost of the product (this is needed because 
for instance if the prod is avco we can not simply use 
_run_average_batch as it is the case for non lot valuated avco 
product, because then the result won't be a weighted average of 
each lot, whereas avg_cost does take this into account) 
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/eaa6c4352aec2be8519360c282f3f6504a2f263c/addons/stock_account/models/product.py#L633-L634

To compute the avg_cost, inside _compute_value(), we use 
the total value of each lot
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/eaa6c4352aec2be8519360c282f3f6504a2f263c/addons/stock_account/models/product.py#L226

The lots total value is computed inside the _compute_value() 
method of stock.lot. 
In this method, because the product is valued by standard_price
we use the standard price of the lot
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/eaa6c4352aec2be8519360c282f3f6504a2f263c/addons/stock_account/models/stock_lot.py#L40
But this value hasn't been updated yet (it will be at the time 
of step 2) so it's still the old value (10 in our case). 

So the avg_cost of the product will also be the old value and 
the standard price will be udpated back the old value

Then, at the end of _change_standard_price() (at the time of step 2)
the standard price of the lots are set based on the standard price 
of the product (so it stays the old value)

**fix:**
Inside _update_standard_price(), if the product is valued by standard 
price we do nothing 
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/eaa6c4352aec2be8519360c282f3f6504a2f263c/addons/stock_account/models/product.py#L639-L640
We apply the same logic for the lot_valued product, if it's standard_price
there is nothing to update

opw-5949146

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264991

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#117837
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#115451

### Issue before this commit:
When importing an XML file containing multiple business documents (multiple bodies with a single header), the system correctly split the file into separate attachments but failed to process any document beyond the first one.

### Steps to reproduce the issue:
1. Download Accounting and l10n_it
2. Go to Vendor -> Bills
3. Try to upload a xml with multiple bodies and one header
4. See only the first bill is correctly imported

### Cause of the issue:
The splitting logic renamed subsequent attachments with numeric suffixes but then this function incorrectly checked the name of the document.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/29805eec2b70144edf9441cffe7e69e39fd4ba0e/addons/l10n_it_edi/models/account_move.py#L297-L305
We can not rely only on the name of the document but we need to check also its content.
Refer to the rules for the name of the attachments: https://www.fatturapa.gov.it/export/documenti/Specifiche-tecniche-relative-al-Sistema-di-Interscambio-versione-1.8.4.pdf

In summary what we need in the document (page 9): 

> The unique progressive of the file is represented by an alphanumeric string up to 5 characters long and with allowed values. [az], [AZ], [0-9]. The unique progressive of the file has the sole purpose of differentiating the name of the files transmitted to the Interchange System by the same entity; it does not necessarily have to follow a strict progressive nature and may also present different numbering styles.

### Reason to introduce the fix:
This fix ensures that the function not only checks the name but also the content to be sure that the xml or p7m file contains a valid structure to be registered.

Ticket [link](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project.task/6072258)
opw-6072258

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265079
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#259887

**Problem:**
change of standard price on a product valued by lot 
and with standard price category does not work

**Steps to reproduce:**
- create a storable product tracked and valued by lot
- set category as standard price
- set a cost of 10 and save
- click on the quantity smart button and then "update quantity"
- add a quantity of 1 in a new lot
- on the product form, change the cost to 12 and save
- reload the page

**Current behavior:**
the cost is back to 10

**Expected behavior:**
it should stay 12

**Cause of the issue:**
when we change the standard_price of the product, 
_change_standard_price() is called from the write method
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/eaa6c4352aec2be8519360c282f3f6504a2f263c/addons/stock_account/models/product.py#L293

Inside _change_standard_price(): 
step 1: a new product.value is created
step 2 : we set the standard_price of the lots to be the same 
as the one of the product
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/eaa6c4352aec2be8519360c282f3f6504a2f263c/addons/stock_account/models/product.py#L319-L323

In the create method for product.value (step 1), we call _set_value() 
on the moves with a remaining quantity
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/eaa6c4352aec2be8519360c282f3f6504a2f263c/addons/stock_account/models/product_value.py#L95
At the end of set_value we call _update_standard_price() on 
our product
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/eaa6c4352aec2be8519360c282f3f6504a2f263c/addons/stock_account/models/stock_move.py#L337

Because the product is lot_valuated we update the standard_price 
based on the avg_cost of the product (this is needed because 
for instance if the prod is avco we can not simply use 
_run_average_batch as it is the case for non lot valuated avco 
product, because then the result won't be a weighted average of 
each lot, whereas avg_cost does take this into account) 
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/eaa6c4352aec2be8519360c282f3f6504a2f263c/addons/stock_account/models/product.py#L633-L634

To compute the avg_cost, inside _compute_value(), we use 
the total value of each lot
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/eaa6c4352aec2be8519360c282f3f6504a2f263c/addons/stock_account/models/product.py#L226

The lots total value is computed inside the _compute_value() 
method of stock.lot. 
In this method, because the product is valued by standard_price
we use the standard price of the lot
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/eaa6c4352aec2be8519360c282f3f6504a2f263c/addons/stock_account/models/stock_lot.py#L40
But this value hasn't been updated yet (it will be at the time 
of step 2) so it's still the old value (10 in our case). 

So the avg_cost of the product will also be the old value and 
the standard price will be udpated back the old value

Then, at the end of _change_standard_price() (at the time of step 2)
the standard price of the lots are set based on the standard price 
of the product (so it stays the old value)

**fix:**
Inside _update_standard_price(), if the product is valued by standard 
price we do nothing 
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/eaa6c4352aec2be8519360c282f3f6504a2f263c/addons/stock_account/models/product.py#L639-L640
We apply the same logic for the lot_valued product, if it's standard_price
there is nothing to update

opw-5949146

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264991

### Issue before this commit:
In the previous implementation, several Italian taxes, specifically the 4% INPS and the 4% Pension Fund (F.Pens), were not correctly initialized. Although the relevant EDI data was present in the source CSV templates, it was missing from the actual tax records in the database.

### Steps to reproduce the issue:
1. Download Accounting and l10n_it_edi
2. Go to Accounting -> Taxes
3. Open 4% INPS tax and 4% F.Pens and go to Advanced Options tab and see that no Pension Fund Type is associated by default

### Cause of the issue:
While moving the witholding data from l10n_it_edi to l10n_it in this commit https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/40e09ca01242 the templates were not correcly rendered and set up.

### Reason to introduce the fix:
For a tax to be correctly recognized from the XML, it is essential that we have the corresponding tax already configured in Odoo, including the specific type. We should have at least these two taxes fully configured so the system can elaborate them correctly when imported from vendor bills.

opw-6093221

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#258947

When updating a mo, if the new component has a multilvl bom, it will only create a mo for the direct child and not the next

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
* Create a products "Main", "Final", "Semi", "Raw"
* Create a Bom for "Final" with "Semi" as component
* Create a Bom for "Semi" with "Raw as component
* Add MTO on Final and Semi
* Create a MO for Main with no components and confirm it
* Add "Final" to the mo as component as save. -> The MO for "Final" is correctly created with "Semi" as component but there is no MO for "Semi" with "Raw" as component.

Observation:
-------------

When updating de MO, it will write the new SM (Final) to the production, and we will call ```_autoconfirm_production``` with ```no_procurement```: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/6fb69b5640743d3bc7bb52c73cb27da428f2451c/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L1051 Where we will directly confirm the sm (```_action_confirm```).

From the SM ```_action_confirm``` we will create and run a procurement (manufacture in our case).
From the manufacture we will create the new move line for Semi and go through ```action_confirm``` on the manufacturing order:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/9ef76a4d6010191ab7ab1a0d1085972901280dda/addons/mrp/models/stock_rule.py#L116-L118
In the MO ```action_confirm```, we will confirm the move and should create new procurement for the moves that need them, but, since in our case we have ```no_procurement``` in the context, we will set ```create_proc``` to false:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/9ef76a4d6010191ab7ab1a0d1085972901280dda/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L1635
Since ```create_proc``` is false we will not create a procurement for those move lines:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/6fb69b5640743d3bc7bb52c73cb27da428f2451c/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1557-L1558
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/6fb69b5640743d3bc7bb52c73cb27da428f2451c/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1571-L1580

opw-6005675

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#258153

Issue
-----
`REF` field of Fedex labels is missing.

Steps to reproduce
-----
- Setup Fedex
- Create a product (set weight)
- Create a delivery for the product
	- Set carrier as Fedex
- Validate delivery
- Opend the label

> REF field is empty

Cause
-----
When filling the `CustomerReferences`, we only specify the SO

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/aae680f5b86fa87193ba6616e8431eed985b2ee7/delivery_fedex_rest/models/fedex_request.py#L309-L313

The `REF` field is populated using `CUSTOMER_REFERENCE` references, which is not present in this case.

Excerpt of the API DOC
-----
```
"CustomerReference": {
	"type": "object",
	"properties": {
		"customerReferenceType": {
			"type": "string",
			"description": [...],
			"example": "DEPARTMENT_NUMBER",
			"enum": [
				"CUSTOMER_REFERENCE",
				"DEPARTMENT_NUMBER",
				"INVOICE_NUMBER",
				"P_O_NUMBER",
				"INTRACOUNTRY_REGULATORY_REFERENCE",
				"RMA_ASSOCIATION"
			]
		},
		"value": {
			"type": "string",
			"description": [...],
			"example": "3686"
		}
	}
},
```

[...] replaces long description strings, refer to API for full documentation.

Result after fix
-----
<img width="477" height="738" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/0d3a0786-5b7d-41cc-8548-2dc7b0f379ab" />

-----
Ticket:
opw-6101620

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#116870

**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

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

Searching for records without a binary attachment (e.g., `('binary_field', '=', False)`) previously generated a query using `NOT IN (SELECT res_id FROM ir_attachment...)`. On databases with a large `ir_attachment` table, materializing this entire list of IDs causes a significant performance bottleneck.

Replacing NOT IN with a NOT EXISTS allows PostgreSQL to short-circuit the evaluation as soon as it find a matching document, drastically reducing query execution time.

Current behavior before PR:

Searching for a "false-ish" binary with attachment generates a query with a `NOT IN`, slow when `ir_attachment` is large.

```python
>>> env["ir.ui.menu"].search([("web_icon_data", "!=", False)])
2026-03-06 15:59:51,326 516177 DEBUG odoo19 odoo.sql_db: [1.076 ms] query: SELECT "ir_ui_menu"."id" FROM "ir_ui_menu" WHERE ("ir_ui_menu"."active" IS TRUE AND "ir_ui_menu"."id" IN (SELECT res_id FROM ir_attachment WHERE res_model = 'ir.ui.menu' AND res_field = 'web_icon_data')) ORDER BY "ir_ui_menu"."sequence"  , "ir_ui_menu"."id"   
ir.ui.menu(15, 1, 16)
>>> env["ir.ui.menu"].search([("web_icon_data", "=", False)])
2026-03-06 15:59:54,439 516177 DEBUG odoo19 odoo.sql_db: [0.665 ms] query: SELECT "ir_ui_menu"."id" FROM "ir_ui_menu" WHERE ("ir_ui_menu"."active" IS TRUE AND "ir_ui_menu"."id" NOT IN (SELECT res_id FROM ir_attachment WHERE res_model = 'ir.ui.menu' AND res_field = 'web_icon_data')) ORDER BY "ir_ui_menu"."sequence"  , "ir_ui_menu"."id"   
ir.ui.menu(62, 68, 3, 10, 43, 59, 4, 28, 44, 65, 6, 7, 29, 41, 45, 61, 66, 5, 18, 30, 31, 48, 49, 60, 69, 70, 9, 11, 12, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 46, 47, 52, 54, 56, 57, 58, 63, 71, 73, 74, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 50, 64, 51, 72, 75, 77, 35, 14, 13, 53, 2, 55, 67, 8)
```


Desired behavior after PR is merged:

Searching for a "false-ish" binary with attachment generates a query with a `NOT EXISTS`

```python
>>> env["ir.ui.menu"].search([("web_icon_data", "!=", False)])
2026-03-06 15:59:04,847 513555 DEBUG odoo19 odoo.sql_db: [0.945 ms] query: SELECT "ir_ui_menu"."id" FROM "ir_ui_menu" WHERE ("ir_ui_menu"."active" IS TRUE AND "ir_ui_menu"."id" IN (SELECT res_id FROM ir_attachment WHERE res_model = 'ir.ui.menu' AND res_field = 'web_icon_data')) ORDER BY "ir_ui_menu"."sequence"  , "ir_ui_menu"."id"   
ir.ui.menu(15, 1, 16)
>>> env["ir.ui.menu"].search([("web_icon_data", "=", False)])
2026-03-06 15:59:08,323 513555 DEBUG odoo19 odoo.sql_db: [0.628 ms] query: SELECT "ir_ui_menu"."id" FROM "ir_ui_menu" WHERE ("ir_ui_menu"."active" IS TRUE AND NOT EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM ir_attachment WHERE res_model = 'ir.ui.menu' AND res_field = 'web_icon_data' AND res_id = "ir_ui_menu"."id")) ORDER BY "ir_ui_menu"."sequence"  , "ir_ui_menu"."id"   
ir.ui.menu(62, 68, 3, 10, 43, 59, 4, 28, 44, 65, 6, 7, 29, 41, 45, 61, 66, 5, 18, 30, 31, 48, 49, 60, 69, 70, 9, 11, 12, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 46, 47, 52, 54, 56, 57, 58, 63, 71, 73, 74, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 50, 64, 51, 72, 75, 77, 35, 14, 13, 53, 2, 55, 67, 8)
```



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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#252525

Before this commit, finding a bom for a recordset of `products` involved looping over all the boms and it will loop over all the `product_variant_ids` of `bom.product_tmpl_id` if the bom's `product_id` is NULL. This approach might loop over variants which we are not trying to find a bom for. In additon to that, due to the fact that multiple boms might have the same `product_tmpl_id`, this approach might consider the same variants in the inner loop redundantly even though we matched the variant with a bom in a previous itration.

Worst case, this might result in a time complexity of $O(N * M)$ where N is the number of boms and M is the number of variants.

To improve the performance, I only considered the variants given in the paramater `products` and in addition to that, I created a new dictionary mapping a `product_tmpl_id` to its bom if the bom doesn't have a variant set. By doing this, I can loop over the `products` given and if it doesn't have a bom set then it will be set to the one its template had taken from the previos loop.

In a method call with the following constraints
    - **2** products the method was finding a bom for
    - The 2 products had the same template and the template contained **550** active variants
    - The boms were only related to the template rather than the variants themselves.

| Input Size | Before | After |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 100 | 0.78s | 0.03s |
| 1000 | 8.53s | 0.11s |
| 10000 | 80.99s | 0.73s |

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#247465

### Issue before this commit:
When importing an XML file containing multiple business documents (multiple bodies with a single header), the system correctly split the file into separate attachments but failed to process any document beyond the first one.

### Steps to reproduce the issue:
1. Download Accounting and l10n_it
2. Go to Vendor -> Bills
3. Try to upload a xml with multiple bodies and one header
4. See only the first bill is correctly imported

### Cause of the issue:
The splitting logic renamed subsequent attachments with numeric suffixes but then this function incorrectly checked the name of the document.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/29805eec2b70144edf9441cffe7e69e39fd4ba0e/addons/l10n_it_edi/models/account_move.py#L297-L305
We can not rely only on the name of the document but we need to check also its content.
Refer to the rules for the name of the attachments: https://www.fatturapa.gov.it/export/documenti/Specifiche-tecniche-relative-al-Sistema-di-Interscambio-versione-1.8.4.pdf

In summary what we need in the document (page 9): 

> The unique progressive of the file is represented by an alphanumeric string up to 5 characters long and with allowed values. [az], [AZ], [0-9]. The unique progressive of the file has the sole purpose of differentiating the name of the files transmitted to the Interchange System by the same entity; it does not necessarily have to follow a strict progressive nature and may also present different numbering styles.

### Reason to introduce the fix:
This fix ensures that the function not only checks the name but also the content to be sure that the xml or p7m file contains a valid structure to be registered.

Ticket [link](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project.task/6072258)
opw-6072258

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265079
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#259887

Before this commit, the "Allow full order validation" were partially ignored in the Barcode app when used for Manufacturing Orders, and the "Mandatory scan" settings didn't work very well.

For example, setting the scan of lot/serial as mandatory didn't prevent the user to set automatically a SN on consummed component by generating a lot/serial on the produced product or by clicking on "Produce All" button.

This commit adds some conditions to avoid to update barcode lines in case they should depending of the config.

This commit also fixes a related issue where the MRP operation type's config wasn't used at all when a MO is created directly from the Barcode app.
As the config is get from the MO's picking type and no MO exists when a new one is created from the Barcode app, there is no MO's config returned in the data send by the server.
To fix that, the config is now updated clientside when the data are fetched after a save.

[Task-5420762](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project/966/tasks/4655907/project.task/5420762)
[opw-5223507](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project/49/tasks/5223507)

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#113318

### 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

__
## Short functional explanation of the error
While investigating for bug reported on ticket 6036064, I found this other bug. It only occurs when hr_attendance and
hr_work_entry_attendance are both installed.
When setting an attendance for an employee that has a check-in date but no check-out date, and running the scheduled action `Automatically check-out employees`, an `expected singleton` error occurs.

## Reproduction Steps
1. Install hr_work_entry_attendance.
2. Create an Employee. In the Payroll tab, set a start date for the contract. In the Settings tab, make sure their timezone is set to Brussels, and set the Overtime Ruleset field to Default Ruleset.
3. In Settings, check the Automatic Check-out box.
4. Go to Attendances. Create an attendance for the employee you just created. Set a Check-in date to 8 am on April 17th, for example, and leave the check-out field empty.
5. Open Scheduled Actions. Search the action Automatically check-out employees and click Run Manually.

### Expected behavior
The attendance check-out should be set at the end of April 17th.

### Unexpected behavior
An error occurs:
`Expected singleton: hr.attendance.overtime.line(39, 40)`

## Origin of the issue
When the attendance goes over several days, we set the check-out date to:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b293ce50e0fc9355ffd233557f079916b514eac7/addons/hr_attendance/models/hr_attendance.py#L618 This is a Naive date. However, it will later be considered as a UTC date. Because the employee's timezone is Brussels, this time will be transformed to 2 am next day when we retrieve attendance intervals. This will result in the creation of overtime entries for both days, causing the Expected Singleton error.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b293ce50e0fc9355ffd233557f079916b514eac7/addons/hr_attendance/models/hr_attendance.py#L687 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b293ce50e0fc9355ffd233557f079916b514eac7/addons/hr_attendance/models/hr_attendance.py#L667-L672 In our case, `self.check_in` = April 17th at 06:00:00 and `self.check_out` = April 17th at 23:59:59. Converted, we will obtain April 17th at 08:00:00 and April 18th at 1:59:59.
Because of that, at the return:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b293ce50e0fc9355ffd233557f079916b514eac7/addons/hr_attendance/models/hr_attendance.py#L706-L709 We will return a dict containing 2 intervals: one for 17th April and one for 18th April.
We will then create overtime entries with such attendances: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b293ce50e0fc9355ffd233557f079916b514eac7/addons/hr_attendance/models/hr_attendance.py#L333 leading to the creation of 2 different overtimes for the same attendance.
So, when we retrieve the overtime for that attendance: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/2d2056766441157dc45ebc37b677841c44e5c513/hr_work_entry_attendance/models/hr_version.py#L185, We get the 2. Thus when trying to access their status with: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/2d2056766441157dc45ebc37b677841c44e5c513/hr_work_entry_attendance/models/hr_version.py#L191 An Expected Singleton Occurs.
__
opw-6036064

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262257

__
## Short functional explanation of the error
While investigating for bug reported on ticket 6036064, I found this other bug. It only occurs when hr_attendance and
hr_work_entry_attendance are both installed.
When setting an attendance for an employee that has a check-in date but no check-out date, and running the scheduled action `Automatically check-out employees`, an `expected singleton` error occurs.

## Reproduction Steps
1. Install hr_work_entry_attendance.
2. Create an Employee. In the Payroll tab, set a start date for the contract. In the Settings tab, make sure their timezone is set to Brussels, and set the Overtime Ruleset field to Default Ruleset.
3. In Settings, check the Automatic Check-out box.
4. Go to Attendances. Create an attendance for the employee you just created. Set a Check-in date to 8 am on April 17th, for example, and leave the check-out field empty.
5. Open Scheduled Actions. Search the action Automatically check-out employees and click Run Manually.

### Expected behavior
The attendance check-out should be set at the end of April 17th.

### Unexpected behavior
An error occurs:
`Expected singleton: hr.attendance.overtime.line(39, 40)`

## Origin of the issue
When the attendance goes over several days, we set the check-out date to:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b293ce50e0fc9355ffd233557f079916b514eac7/addons/hr_attendance/models/hr_attendance.py#L618 This is a Naive date. However, it will later be considered as a UTC date. Because the employee's timezone is Brussels, this time will be transformed to 2 am next day when we retrieve attendance intervals. This will result in the creation of overtime entries for both days, causing the Expected Singleton error.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b293ce50e0fc9355ffd233557f079916b514eac7/addons/hr_attendance/models/hr_attendance.py#L687 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b293ce50e0fc9355ffd233557f079916b514eac7/addons/hr_attendance/models/hr_attendance.py#L667-L672 In our case, `self.check_in` = April 17th at 06:02:00 and `self.check_out` = April 17th at 23:59:59. Converted, we will obtain April 17th at 08:02:00 and April 18th at 1:59:59.
Because of that, at the return:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b293ce50e0fc9355ffd233557f079916b514eac7/addons/hr_attendance/models/hr_attendance.py#L706 We will return a dict containing 2 intervals: one for 17th April and one for 18th April.
We will then create overtime entries with such attendances: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b293ce50e0fc9355ffd233557f079916b514eac7/addons/hr_attendance/models/hr_attendance.py#L333 leading to the creation of 2 different overtimes for the same attendance.
So, when we retrieve the overtime for that attendance: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/2d2056766441157dc45ebc37b677841c44e5c513/hr_work_entry_attendance/models/hr_version.py#L185, We get the 2. Thus when trying to access their status with: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/2d2056766441157dc45ebc37b677841c44e5c513/hr_work_entry_attendance/models/hr_version.py#L191 An Expected Singleton Occurs.
__
opw-6036064

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#115828

### Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

Some stock queries determine whether a location belongs to the subtree of a set of locations by checking the parent_path prefix against candidate parent locations. This is done using a correlated EXISTS subquery with a LIKE parent.parent_path || '%' condition.

When the list of candidate locations becomes large (for example tens or hundreds of thousands of ids), this approach causes extremely poor performance because the database must repeatedly compare hierarchical path strings for every candidate row.

This PR improves the performance of this ancestry check by replacing the string prefix comparison with a direct check on the ancestor ids contained in parent_path.

### Current behavior before PR:

The query determines whether a location belongs to the subtree of one of the provided locations using:

location.parent_path LIKE parent.parent_path || '%'

For each row, PostgreSQL must evaluate a correlated subquery against all candidate parent locations. Because this relies on string prefix comparisons on parent_path, when the location list is large, this results in extremely slow queries.

### Desired behavior after PR is merged:

Instead of performing string prefix comparisons, the query extracts the ancestor ids directly from parent_path.

The path is:

1. Trimmed to remove leading and trailing /
2. Split into an array of ancestor ids
3. Expanded using unnest
4. Checked for intersection with the provided location ids

This converts the ancestry check from repeated string comparisons into a simple integer membership check.

### Benchmarks

Comparing performance of old subquery:

```
SELECT stock_location_inner.id 
FROM stock_location AS stock_location_inner 
WHERE EXISTS (
    SELECT 1
    FROM stock_location parent
	WHERE parent.id IN (long list)
		AND stock_location_inner.parent_path LIKE parent.parent_path || '%%'
);
```

to new one:

```
SELECT stock_location_inner.id 
FROM stock_location AS stock_location_inner 
WHERE EXISTS (
    SELECT 1
    FROM unnest(
        string_to_array(trim(both '/' FROM stock_location_inner.parent_path), '/')::int[]
    ) AS path_id(id)
	WHERE path_id.id IN (long list)
);
```

Depending on the number of elements in 'long list'

| # of elements | Before | After |
| --- |---|---|
| 130,000 | 21min | 0.8sec |  
| 10,000 | 95sec | 0.5sec |  
| 1,000 | 10.5sec | 0.5sec |  

In practice, on the reference ticket this causes the "Validate" button on a stock picking to go from timing out to taking 8 seconds. 

### Reference

opw-5932436

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#254245

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

Steps to reproduce
1. Install hr_holidays and hr_contract.
2. Take a demo employee currently on a validated time off covering now.
3. Set the employee's running contract Working Schedule to empty (fully flexible).
4. Run the "HR Contract: update state" cron (or otherwise leave the contract in state open / close, or draft + kanban Ready).
5. Open the Employees app or any view rendering that employee's chatter / follower panel.

Issue
A traceback "Expected singleton: resource.calendar()" is raised. If the employee's chatter is open, the failing compute is re-fired on every store refresh and the UI becomes unusable.

For fully flexible contracts, hr.contract has no resource_calendar_id, so _get_calendar_periods appends period tuples with an empty calendar recordset (https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/c6d9fa5873eb759846e9be5b66eedb8b00c5ac11/addons/hr_contract/models/hr_employee.py#L184). _get_first_working_interval then forwarded that empty recordset to _work_intervals_batch, which calls ensure_one() and crashes.

This regressed when _compute_leave_status was switched from a single calendar lookup to per-period iteration in
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/bf73b63eec56a822edec2d9ecfeb231a0fbfbbe8 which did not consider that a period in the chain can come from a contract with no calendar.

Solution
Fall back to the company's calendar when the period's calendar is empty, matching the guard already present from saas-18.4 onwards in https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/21f18b1a6fdbf1a01c3dda83acfa66addd01a759.

opw-6168264

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#261995

**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

The display name of the account.report.line in the general ledger report has the format of:

INVOICE NAME (invoice refs)

In the case where a client has hundreds of sales
orders batched to a single invoice, the ref can
become extremely long, e.g.:

INV/2026/00001 (S12123, S12152, S12159, S12140, S12165, S12161, S12162, S12110, S12099, S12124, S12145, S12128, S12114, S12131, S12097, S12185, S12154, S12133, S12190, S12118, S12116, S12102, S12155, S12153, S12158, S12150, S12100, S12142, S12121, S12122, S12111, S12187, S12172, S12177, S12095, S12117, S12144, S12137, S12092, S12138, S12186, S12182, S12112, S12148, S12183, S12101, S12178, S12119, S12169, S12115, S12146, S12093, S12126, S12160, S12163, S12129, S12098, S12151, S12096, S12174, S12120, S12130, S12147, S12180, S12191, S12164, S12141, S12105, S12136, S12139, S12109, S12106, S12104, S12103, S12175, S12179, S12188, S12113, S12173, S12167, S12171, S12134, S12094, S12184, S12166, S12170, S12125, S12135, S12143, S12176, S12189, S12156, S12181, S12107, S12157, S12132, S12149, S12127, S12108, S12168...)

Because the length of the account.report.line is
unchecked in account_general_ledger.py label
builder, the pdf can clog to one or two
account.report.lines per page, skyrocketing
the pdf page length.

As wkhtmltopdf processes the report
from html to pdf it makes a system call openat() to the /tmp/report.footer.tmp.x.html file for
EACH page of the pdf. You can
see the TODO comment in the spoolTo function in
wkhtmltopdf (both in Odoo and the original repo)
saying that the header and footer need to be freed, on each page processing, not just null pointed.

https://github.com/odoo/wkhtmltopdf/blob/2c884bd1545b8a639847de22f24754ee5a6fc44c/src/lib/pdfconverter.cc#L794

I verified that that the number of openat calls
to the /tmp/report.footer.tmp.x.html file
equals the exact number of pages in the pdf to be
generated if the report HAD generated successfully by setting the footer input into
_run_wkhtmltopdf to None, generating the report
without footers, then separately running an strace on wkhtmltopdf when the report fails to generate.
See related ticket linked at bottom.

The linux machine used on sh instances has a
ulimit -n of 1024 file descriptors. Because
the footer file descriptors accumulate, once a pdf has about 1010+ pages (~a dozen fd's are allocated for other purposes), over 1024 file descriptors
are opened and the system fails with:

Wkhtmltopdf failed (error code: -6). Message:
QEventDispatcherUNIXPrivate(): Unable to create
thread pipe: Too many open files
QEventDispatcherUNIXPrivate(): Can not continue
without a thread pipe

Since wkhtmltopdf is archived and Odoo has a
replacement in development, I suggest that we
limit the display_name of the account.report.line
to 200 to keep the bloat minimized, preventing
one account.report.line's name from taking up
an entire page of the general ledger pdf. This
allows many more batched invoices to be shown in
the report and a much greater time range of
data to be printed without hitting the fd limit.

I suggest changing it at the general ledger report level rather than in the account.move.line
_compute_display_name function, as we probably
still want to see the full display_names at the
invoice level.

On runbot, the machine has different memory
constraints than on sh / local, so it hits the
following error before the one above:

Wkhtmltopdf failed (error code: -11). Memory limit too low or maximum file number of subprocess
reached. Message :

1. newdb -n test_gl -v 19.0
2. ensure ulimit is set to 1024 in shell that runs odoo instance by running ulimit -n 1024 to
mimic ulimit of sh environment
3. run db with python3 odoo-bin, ensuring high enough memory constraints to simulate multi
worker sh instance, i.e.
--limit-memory-soft=12884901888
--limit-memory-hard=1288490188
4. install sales, accounting, stock
5. install demo data
6. create invoices with 100+ associated sales orders
7. generate the pdf
8. Increase the amount of invoices till the general ledger page count hits ~1010+, where you will
hit the error.

opw-ticket-6201508

closes #

### 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

Steps to reproduce:
----------------------------------------
- Install the l10N_ch localization.
- Create an 8.1% purchase tax (tax included).
- Add the tax created in step 2 to the credit account in wage type 1910.
- Create an employee in the Swiss company and create a certificate type in the wage statement tabulation of the employee record.
- Create a contract for the employee created in step 4.
- Ensure that wage type 1910 is present in the contract created in step 5 and set the contract's status to 'Running'.
- Generate a new payslip for the employee created in step 4.
- Compute the sheet and create the draft entry.
- The tax amount is not calculated correctly.

Cause:
----------------------------------------
In Swiss payslips taxes are always computed as excluded because of [`_prepare_product_base_line_for_taxes_computation()`](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/30b525062fee48a453162e4f8087000b3c7dcd24/addons/account/models/account_move.py#L1510).

Solution:
----------------------------------------
Override `_prepare_product_base_line_for_taxes_computation` and remove the special mode.

opw-4997536

Steps to reproduce:
===================
1. Create 2 pricelists, pricelist 1 is backend-only (no website_id, not selectable), pricelists 2 have website_id set
2. Create a website form creating a customer with a pricelist field
3. Submit the form selecting pricelist 2 (first website-available one)

=> Pricelist reverts to pricelist 1 (the global default)

Cause:
======
When creating a partner via a website form with a specific pricelist, the inverse of `property_product_pricelist` calls
`_get_country_pricelist_multi` to determine the "default" pricelist and decide whether to store the value explicitly or store False (meaning "use the default"). With `website_sale` installed, the search domain hook adds website-availability filtering during website requests. This causes the inverse to compute a different "default" pricelist than what the compute uses outside the website context.

The inverse sees pricelist 2 as the "website default" (first by sequence matching the website domain) and stores False. The compute later runs without website context, finds pricelist 1 as the global default, and returns the wrong value.

Solution:
=========
The fix bypasses website filtering in the search domain hook when called from the inverse, ensuring the stored value is based on the context-independent default.

opw-6092161

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

**problem:**
When taxes are configured as tax-included and a fiscal position remaps them (for example from NL 21% ST to EU intra B2B 0% EX EU G), the computed unit price is stored with excessive decimal digits (e.g 82.644628099...)

**steps to reproduce:**
1. Install `l10n_nl`
2. Switch to the Dutch company/ NL company
3. Ensure fiscal position `EU intra B2B` maps `21% ST` to `0% EX EU G`
4. Set tax `21% ST` as tax included
5. Create a product with sales tax `21% ST`
6. Create a quotation/invoice, apply fiscal position `EU intra B2B`
7. Add the product line (or change fiscal position on an existing line and update taxes)
8. You will see `price_unit` displays too many decimals

**cause:**
In both `sale.order.line._reset_price_unit` and `account.move.line._compute_price_unit` unit prices coming from tax-included remapping are written directly to price_unit. https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/7302b504fc03583944f4dff947cf9725fec9a75b/addons/sale/models/sale_order_line.py#L598-L602 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/7302b504fc03583944f4dff947cf9725fec9a75b/addons/account/models/account_move_line.py#L871-L878

The tax remapping path uses tax detail computations with 'global' rounding to preserve fiscal accuracy during conversion, but the resulting `price_unit` was written back without currency rounding. https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/7302b504fc03583944f4dff947cf9725fec9a75b/addons/account/models/account_tax.py#L1303-L1310

**fix:**
- Round computed `price_unit` with document currency precision before storing in both sale_order_line, account_move_line.
- In `account.move.action_update_fpos_values`, recompute from untaxed base when tax include mode changes, then round with currency precision. (We do this change to ensure behavior is consistent, when changing fiscal position and clicking "update taxes" on already existent quotations/invoices"

opw-6081856

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

The total of a sale order containing a combo product that has an extra price is not correclty converted to the sale order's pricelist currency

Steps to reproduce:
1. Install Sales
2. Go to Invoicing > Configuration > Accounting > Currencies and activate currency MXN
3. Go to Sales > Products > Pricelists and create a new pricelist for currency MXN
4. Go to Sales > Products and create a new combo product "test"
5. Create a combo choice "combo" with options "Large Cabinet" and extra price 10000$
6. Go to Sales and create a new quotation for customer Acme Corporation with product "test" (total is $10,001)
7. Change the pricelist to MXN and update prices
8. The total is ~MX$10,018 (it should be ~MX$186,682)

Issue:
The extra price of a combo product is not converted to the sale order's pricelist currency, so we end up adding the price of the product in the order's currency with the extra price not converted

Solution:
Convert the extra price of the combo product to the sale order's pricelist currency

opw-6192935