**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install Accounting and Point of Sale

- In Accounting settings, activate "AvaTax"
- Configure the AvaTax fiscal position and activate "Detect Automatically" option
- Make sure that the other fiscal positions don't have that option set or that they are ordered after the AvaTax one

- Go to the settings of a point of Sale
- Activate "Flexible Taxes" and configure "Default" and "Allowed"
- Make sure that AvaTax fiscal position is not allowed
- Do not activate "AvaTax PoS Integration"

- Open a POS session
- Select a customer with an address in the US and without fiscal position
- Check the fiscal position

**Issue:**
The selected fiscal position is the AvaTax one even though AvaTax is not activated in the POS.

**Cause:**
We force the use of a fiscal position if it is configured on a customer.
In this case, as no fiscal position is configured on the customer, we try to retrieve one that matches the condition and the AvaTax one is selected.

**Solution:**
When searching for the fiscal position of a customer, if AvaTax is not configured in the POS and if its fiscal positions are not allowed in POS, we ignore the fiscal positions using AvaTax.

opw-6154089




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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263342

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install Accounting and Point of Sale

- In Accounting settings, activate "AvaTax"
- Configure the AvaTax fiscal position and activate "Detect Automatically" option
- Make sure that the other fiscal positions don't have that option set or that they are ordered after the AvaTax one

- Go to the settings of a point of Sale
- Activate "Flexible Taxes" and configure "Default" and "Allowed"
- Make sure that AvaTax fiscal position is not allowed
- Do not activate "AvaTax PoS Integration"

- Open a POS session
- Select a customer with an address in the US and without fiscal position
- Check the fiscal position

**Issue:**
The selected fiscal position is the AvaTax one even though AvaTax is not activated in the POS.

**Cause:**
We force the use of a fiscal position if it is configured on a customer.
In this case, as no fiscal position is configured on the customer, we try to retrieve one that matches the condition and the AvaTax one is selected.

**Solution:**
When searching for the fiscal position of a customer, if AvaTax is not configured in the POS and if its fiscal positions are not allowed in POS, we ignore the fiscal positions using AvaTax.

opw-6154089

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#116626

**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#265623
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#117927
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#115451

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

**Steps to reproduce:**
1) Install l10n_be and configure Peppol demo mode. 
2) Open debug mode, search for 'Peppol: retrieve new documents' in scheduled action. 
3) Open the generated vendor draft bill.
4) Observe that the imported XML is present in attachments but not in chatter.

**Cause:**
In the (`_import_ubl_invoice_post_processing()`)
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/27cc9b920ad6818563b471dd3391548913790ef3/addons/account_edi_ubl_cii/models/account_edi_ubl.py#L3344

chatter attachments were built from: `self._import_attachments(invoice, collected_values['tree'])` This only includes embedded extra documents and emits the source imported XML attachment.
As a result, the XML remained stored on the move (ubl_cii_xml_file) but was not linked to the chatter message.

**Solution:**
Include the source attachment when building the chatter attachment set.

opw-6197738

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264399

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#265702
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#252525

Steps to reproduce:
===================
1. Create a product, link it to an eCommerce category, keep it unpublished.
2. Create a mega menu, edit it.
3. Enable "eCommerce Categories" and try to change the number of columns.

=> Mega menu is empty and a JS error is logged in the console.

Cause:
======
The "eCommerce Categories" toggle in the mega menu builder appears whenever any `product.public.category` exists for the website. Once toggled, the eCommerce mega menu templates (`s_mega_menu_multi_menus`, etc.) are server-rendered and the resulting HTML is stored on `website.menu.mega_menu_content`.

Since [1] , those templates filter their with
`('has_published_products', '=', True)`. So when the user has categories but no published product, enabling the toggle produces an empty `<div class="row"></div>`. Clicking the column-count option on that empty row which won't have any children and it will cause an error.

Solution:
=========
Adapt the toggle on the same condition the templates use, so it is only offered when there is at least one category that will actually be rendered.

[1]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/120a7633505891ba3e02e879f0c1a8287a690456

opw-6218503

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265615
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265190

Before this commit:
1. Create a POS order with no discount and a quantity that does not divide evenly into the unit price (e.g. price=10.0, qty=3)
2. Send the order to Jofotara

Jofotara rejects the invoice because the AllowanceCharge/Amount on the invoice line is a small negative value like -0.000000001 with the error `"EINV_MESSAGE":"discount cannot be negative"`

This happens because _add_document_line_gross_subtotal_and_discount_vals computes the discount as: gross_subtotal - total_excluded_currency

where gross_subtotal goes through two independent rounding steps (round unit price, then round unit_price * qty). When the quantity is indivisible, the reconstituted gross_subtotal can land just below total_excluded_currency by a floating-point epsilon, producing a tiny negative discount. The same subtraction also produces a legitimate negative value for refund lines (negative quantity), which was already handled by abs() in _add_pos_order_discount_vals for the document-level total but was left unguarded at the per-line level.

After this commit:

Apply abs() to vals[f'discount_amount{currency_suffix}'] in _add_pos_order_line_allowance_charge_nodes so that discount_amount_currency is always non-negative.

opw-6183423

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265159

### 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

**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

Steps to reproduce:
1- Install Accounting
2- Go to [Accounting -> Assets] and create a new asset with start date 1/1/2025
3- Specify the fixed asset account and confirm the asset
4- Open [Accounting -> Lock Dates]
5- Set a Lock date on everything with the date 31/12/2025 and save
6- Cancel the asset, set to draft and confirm again

Issue:
`Invalid Operation: The remaining value on the last depreciation line must be 0`

Expected behavior:
Should not be able to set to draft once the asset is cancelled

Why this happens:
Commit 66db1d5 introduced a new condition on the `Set to Draft` button which results in the button being visible when it should not be. If a Lock Date is set after an asset is confirmed, the acquisition and any depreciation entries are effectively finalized in the accounting history. Allowing a user to "Set to Draft" at that point would involve deleting or modifying entries in a closed period, which violates accounting integrity.

opw-6152777

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#116900

Issue before this commit:
=========================
The picking operations report displays the operations table without borders, 
making it difficult to read and distinguish between rows and columns.

Steps to Reproduce:
=========================
- Install the stock module
- Create a delivery order with products
- Print the picking operations report

Cause of the issue:
=========================
In this commit (https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/21cd7e6), the `o_report_stockpicking_operations` class was added 
to a div, which removed the table borders.

After This Commit:
=========================
This change restores the table borders in the operations report, improving readability.

Before: 
<img width="796" height="523" alt="2026-04-17_16-30" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/084861e9-3c5b-4ca7-a237-32a56bf2267d" />

After:
<img width="795" height="596" alt="2026-04-17_16-30_1" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/e43ed341-8e8b-47c9-9820-66a53823b26c" />

Task: 5462122

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#253498

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#117926
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117073

Steps to produce:
---
- Install `website_sale`, `l10n_ca` & `accountant` modules with demo data.
- Switch to a `Canadian (CA) company.`
- Go to Settings and enable` Discounts, Loyalty & Gift Cards`.
- Go to` Website > eCommerce > Loyalty > Discount & Loyalty.`
- Create a new program > Set Program Type to Discount Code > Under Conditional Rules, set Minimum Purchase to 0 > Under Rewards, choose Discount on Order.
- Go to `website > configuration > websites` > Create a new website for the CA company > Set it as default (first in sequence).
- Create new product > Set Sales Taxes to` 14.975% GST + QST` > Publish the product.
- Open the website in an incognito window > Add the product to the cart > Apply the discount code.
- In the main tab > Go to Website > eCommerce > Orders > Open the corresponding order > In the Other Info tab, change the fiscal position to Quebec (QC) > Click to update taxes.

Issue:
---
- The tax on the discount line is split into: 14.975% GST + QST & 9.975% QST.

Root cause:
---
- When a discount is applied in the cart, the discount line initially carries split taxes: 5% GST and 9.975% QST.
- After changing the fiscal position to Quebec (QC), the system replaces 5% GST with 14.975% GST + QST because 5% GST is present in replace of 14.975% GST. so at [1] it replaces 5% GST with 14.975% GST and do nothing for 9.975% QST.
- In 17.0, the discount line directly uses 14.975% GST + QST (no tax splitting), so this issue does not occur.
- In 18.0, at [2], taxes are explicitly split and added to the base line, and the same split taxes are reused during grouping. This leads to multiple taxes being displayed on the sale order line.

Fix:
---
- Avoid splitting taxes on the discount line in the sale order.
- Keep the original tax structure intact to prevent duplication after fiscal position changes.

[1]https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/c6d9fa5873eb759846e9be5b66eedb8b00c5ac11/addons/account/models/partner.py#L151-L156
[2]https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/c6d9fa5873eb759846e9be5b66eedb8b00c5ac11/addons/sale_loyalty/models/sale_order.py#L296

opw-6145674
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265233
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262147

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#117816
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#113318

### Steps to reproduce:
- Download 'Point of Sale' and 'Contacts' app
- Create a customer with a pricelist that includes a percentage discount
- Create a shop with the following properties:
    - Default preset = 'Takeout' with a standard 40hr/week schedule
    - Payments = 'Card' and 'Customer Account'
    - Pricelists = a 'Default' and the discounted pricelist
- Create a POS order (without choosing a customer)
- Add products to the order, and select 'Customer Account' payment method
- Select the created customer
    * Pricelist applies → Order total decreases.
    * Payment now exceeds total → Negative change shown.
- Disable 'Invoice' checkbox.
- Click 'Validate' → Show popup 'No cash statement found for this session.'
- Again click 'Customer Account' → Add another payment line (negative).
- Process the order payment
- Close Session
- Try to create an invoice for the order
> Error: Entry not balanced

### Cause of Issue:
When 'Validate' is clicked for the first time and `syncAllOrders()` is called, `serializeForORM()`
clears the `_dirty` state tracking after the serialization. https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/418b103dab782d81a33d2a7afd8ec3767d7a82df/addons/point_of_sale/static/src/app/services/pos_store.js#L1501-L1534

When the 'No cash statement found' error occurs, the backend rolls back the changes made to the
order lines.

Then, since the `order.lines` weren't marked as dirty (no changes occured to them) and `payment.ids`
were marked as dirty, when 'Validate' is clicked for the second time, the js side doesn't send the
`order.lines` again, so the backend uses the existing, undiscounted lines.

The mismatch happens because while the product lines are undiscounted, the `payment.ids` are
correct (because a new 'Customer Account' line was added, so `payment.ids` were sent again).
Hence, `amount_total` and `amount_paid` were calculated with discounts applied, while individual
`line.price_unit` values remained at list price, resulting in invoice line amounts not matching
the amount paid and causing "entry not balanced" errors during invoice generation.

### Fix:
Preserved the `_ dirty` state commands, ensuring that when the order is reserialized on retry,
the line data are included in the second `sync_from_ui` payload.

opw-6080597

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#259636

**Steps to reproduce:**
* Install a Norwegian localization (e.g. **l10n_no**).
* Set up a company with a valid Norwegian VAT number (e.g. **NO179728982MVA** or just **179728982**).
* Create a customer invoice and send it via **Peppol** (format: **UBL BIS Billing 3.0.12**).

**Observed behavior:**
* The EDI document creation fails with: "The VAT number of the supplier does not seem to be valid. It should be of the form: NO179728982MVA."
* The error occurs even when the VAT number is correctly formatted.

**Cause:**
* Commit 186ad1db refactored the party node building by removing `_get_party_node()` and replacing it with granular `_ubl_add_party_*_nodes()` methods. The Norwegian VAT normalization block (introduced in task-5448941) that set `supplierCompanyID` on the party node lived inside `_get_party_node()` and was not ported to the new architecture, leaving `supplierCompanyID` never set.
* The NO-R-001 constraint in `_invoice_constraints_peppol_en16931_ubl()` reads the VAT from `party_node.get('supplierCompanyID')`, which now always returns `None`, causing `mva.is_valid(None)` to return `False` and the constraint to always fail.

**Fix:**
* Port the missing normalization logic into `_ubl_add_accounting_supplier_party_tax_scheme_nodes()`: prepend `NO` and append `MVA` to the VAT if not already present, then assign the normalized value to `party_node['supplierCompanyID']` and update `PartyTaxScheme[0]/CompanyID` when a VAT node exists.
* Handle the `NO` case in `_ubl_add_party_legal_entity_nodes()` to write the normalized VAT into `PartyLegalEntity/CompanyID`.

opw-6215400

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264679