Currently the query to get the closing difference account move is done by searching for the reference of the move, which is not very efficient. This commit optimizes this query by adding the journal to the search criteria, which allows us to benefit from the index on the journal_id field.

Here is an example of the before after on a database with 39 million account_move records. Meanwhile only 10-20K account_move are linked to specific journals used in POS payment methods.

All measures are performed with a warmed up cache

[Explain Before](https://explain.dalibo.com/plan/h8edf56c09d7dfd7)

### Benchmark:
<table>
	<thead>
		<tr>
			<th># of am</th>
			<th>Before</th>
			<th>After</th>
		</tr>
	</thead>
	<tbody>
		<tr>
			<td>38982635</td>
			<td>~17s</td>
			<td>~22ms</td>
		</tr>
	</tbody>
</table>

[Explain After](https://explain.dalibo.com/plan/be2397f176a6b29d)

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262148

[FIX] hr_attendance_gantt: fix gantt view with public holidays

Bug reproduction:
    1 - Select flex schedule employee (or change its schedule to 40h flex one) and make its contract before 01/01/2026
    2 - Create a new public holiday on 01/01/2026 (from 00.00 to 23.59 or 23.55 (depends on version, it does not matter))
    3 - in attendance app the cell from 00.00 to 01.00 seems white for that day and for selected employee (this cell seems like not holiday and employee can work)

Bug cause:
    1 - After a long traceback, _gantt_unavailability in hr_attendance_gantt/HrAttendance, if an employee is flexible then unavailable_intervals is calculated with the Brussel time zone
    2 - All other unavailable intervals are converted to the UTC in the function of _gantt_unavailability except in the final lines of the function.
    3 - When the employee is flexible and since the conversion is not done in the final lines, it remains 1 hour more (UTC+1), it is from 1 am to 1 am of next day instead of 0 am to 23.59.

Bug solution:
    1 - I converted the timezone to UTC to solve the problem.

task - 6067070

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#112493

Creating a bank account with a falsy proxy value generates a traceback.

Steps to reproduce the error:
- Install ``l10n_br`` module with demo data
- Switch to BR Company
- Go to Contacts > Configuration > Bank Accounts > Create a new bank account >
  Add any value as Account Number >  Account Holder: BR Company >
  Proxy Type: CPF/CNPJ(BR) or Random Key (BR) > Save

Traceback:
```py
InvalidFormat: The number has an invalid format.
```
```py
TypeError: 'bool' object is not iterable
```

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/132f042ca14012877f608783b57a0ca9c4e565f3/addons/l10n_br/models/res_partner_bank.py#L38-L45
For ``CPF/CNPJ`` validation, calling ``check_vat_br`` with a falsy proxy value
raises a traceback.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/132f042ca14012877f608783b57a0ca9c4e565f3/addons/l10n_br/models/res_partner_bank.py#L56-L61
For ``Random Key`` validation, ``re.fullmatch`` expects a string value,
but receives ``False``, leading to a traceback.

sentry-7488238698

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264995

# How to reproduce
- Go to the Form view of a model to which you can Add Properties
(e.g. Project > Tasks)
- Click on the gear icon > Add Properties
- Create a property field with :
	- Name : X
	- Field Type : Decimal
- Create two records for that model and set the value of the property to 1 & 2
- Go back and Add a custom filter with ('Properties.X', '=', 1)

# The problem
We see both records even tho we should only see one

# Cause of the issue
When doing the search, we transform the domain into the where clause of a
query. This transformation is done with the `condition_to_sql()`
function of the concerned field (`fields_properties` in our case):
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ba9e18688cc9c6e0d4da5ab60acf08d4c49b99d7/odoo/orm/fields_properties.py#L589

In this function, we manipulate a bit the condition depending on the value,
notably if the value is/contains True. To check it does, we do this :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ba9e18688cc9c6e0d4da5ab60acf08d4c49b99d7/odoo/orm/fields_properties.py#L601

The issue is that in python, True in [1] and evaluates to True
because bool is a subset of int. This changes the condition and replaces it in
our case with ('Properties.X', '!=', 'False'), which is obviously not what
was initially asked for.

opw-6224811

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265835

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265876
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265008

## [FIX] core: lxml compatibility v2.14.0+ (HTML parsing)

In version 2.14.0, libxml2 fixed a long standing quirk in its HTML
handling where it always implies `<p>` start tags [1].

As a result, there is a difference in behavior between pre and post
2.14.0 produced HTML when no start tag is provided:
- pre: always has a `<p>` tag
- post: depending on the case, could have either a `<span>` or `<p>` tag.

This commit introduces a monkeypatch of the lxml's HTML parser when
built with libxml2 2.14.0+ to maintain a similar behavior with older
versions.

[1]: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/libxml2/-/commit/8cf6129bbd836e666e7eda8c9e61c00387ae388b


## [FIX] base,l10n_it_edi: catch TypeError/ValueError for lxml 6+ compat

Updates exception handling to account for stricter type checking
introduced in lxml 5/6 and libxml2 2.12+.

Note: Ubuntu 26.04 (Resolute) provides lxml 6.9.2/libxml2 2.15 while
Debian Trixie has lxml 5.4.0/libxml2 2.9.14. Don't be fooled by the
version `2.12.7+dfsg+really2.9.14-2.1+deb13u1` which actually means that
Debian has reverted/held back the core engine to 2.9.14 while adding
commits from 2.12.7.

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#259348

**Problem**:
When we set the quantity of a move to zero, then add serial numbers manually, if the serial numbers are not the first ones in the list of available serial numbers, The first few available serial numbers will be added to the move, which causes a mismatch of quantity and the number of serial numbers.

**Before this commit:**
If we have three serial number SN-001, SN-002, SN-003 created in order, and we set the quantity of the move to zero, then add SN-002 and SN-003 manually, SN-001 will be added automatically while saving.

**After this commit:**
Only SN-002 and SN-003 will be added to the move, which matches the quantity.

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Create a product with tracking by unique serial number, and create 3 lots SN-001, SN-002, SN-003 for this product.
2. Create a picking and add a move for this product, set the demand to 3 and quantity to 0.
3. Set the quantity to 2, and add SN-002 and SN-003 to the move, then save the picking.
4. SN-001 will be added to the move automatically, but the quantity stays at 2.

opw-6121208

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265908
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263080

## Steps to reproduce:

1. Install `l10n_lu_reports`, swap to the LU company
2. Look at the partner Azure Interior.
    1. They have no open balances on `asset_receivable` or `liability_payable` accounts.
    2. Their `supplier_count` is higher than their `customer_count`.
3. Navigate to Accounting > Reporting > General Ledger.
4. Select the 2026 fiscal year.
5. Select gear > FAIA report.
6. Open the downloaded file. Notice:
    1. Azure Interior is listed under /MasterFiles/Customers/Customer.
    2. There are no /MasterFiles/Suppliers.
    3. Azure Interior's ID (14 in this case) is referenced in a /SupplierID section.
7. Take a gander at the official XSD for LU [1]. The SupplierID must match an element in /MasterFiles/Suppliers.

Video: [2]

## Explanation

This is one of several errors found with the FAIA export. See PR #113316 for more.

It's possible to have a /SupplierID listed on a /Transaction/Line element but not have a /Suppliers/Supplier element that it refers to. This is not valid according to the FAIA report's schema [1].

This happens because /Transaction/Line and /MasterFiles use different criteria to determine if a partner is a Customer or a Supplier.

The element /Transaction/Line [3] determines this from the `partner_vals['type']` value [4].  This value is 'customer' or 'supplier' and is determined by comparing the ResPartner fields `customer_rank` and `supplier_rank`. In case of a tie, the partner is assigned as a 'supplier'.

The element /MasterFiles allows a partner to be both a Customer and a Supplier via `partner_vals['types']` [5]. Partners with an open `asset_receivable` balance at the start or end of the reporting period are listed as Customers [6]. Likewise, partners with an open `liability_payable` balance are listed as Suppliers [7]. If there are no open balances, partners are put in the Customer list by default.

The XSD validation error will not show up in a standard Runbot database because the namespace for the XSD is incorrect. If you manually fix the XSD namespace (`xmlns:doc` instead of `xmlns`) and use xmllint to check a generated XML against the XSD, it will raise the following error.

> No match found for key-sequence ['14'] of keyref 'RefGLTransactionLineSupplier'. Downloads/general_ledger (5).xml fails to validate

[1] https://pfi.public.lu/dam-assets/backup/FAIA/FAIA/XSD_Files.zip. I will note that there are three XSDs. Version A has a different namespace and appears to be more restrictive. The "full" XSD document does not raise these errors.
[2] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xeULpCcGgZk-kYcCjBTKxcfv4ICYRzaB/view?usp=sharing
[3] https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/434d88960abb5e424fdc1106fc93935d328bff78/account_saft/data/saft_report.xml#L244-L248
[4] https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/434d88960abb5e424fdc1106fc93935d328bff78/account_saft/models/account_general_ledger.py#L299
[5] https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/434d88960abb5e424fdc1106fc93935d328bff78/account_saft/models/account_general_ledger.py#L303-L309
[6] https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/434d88960abb5e424fdc1106fc93935d328bff78/account_saft/data/saft_report.xml#L153
[7] https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/434d88960abb5e424fdc1106fc93935d328bff78/account_saft/data/saft_report.xml#L173

opw-6107107

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117799

### Issue before this commit:
Opening the Purchase Matching wizard would crash if the vendor bill contained lines with a description and a Unit of Measure (UoM), but no product selected.

### Steps to reproduce the issue:
1. Enable Units of Measure in Settings
2. Create and confirm a Vendor Bill setting a description and a UoM, but leave the Product field empty.
3. Click on "Purchase matching" smart button
4. The system throws a traceback with the error: "The unit of measure Unit defined on the order line doesn't belong to the same category as the unit of measure False defined on the product."

### Cause of the issue:
In the purchase.bill.line.match model, the field product_uom_qty was computed by calling _compute_quantity using line.product_uom_id. Since product_uom_id is a related field on product_id.uom_id, it returns False when no product is set. The UoM conversion logic cannot handle a False destination category, leading to the crash.

### Reason to introduce the fix:
Make purchase matching robust when imported vendor bills contain lines identified only by their description and not by a product. Note that for `purchase.bill.line.match` corresponding to an account.move.line but not related to any product, the `product_uom_qty` should match the quantity of the `aml_id` instead of attempting a UoM conversion based on a missing 
product UoM for the behavior to be consistent with the inverse method:

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/59d6232979b8499fde6cb700df1870e2e38d0d3e/addons/purchase/models/purchase_bill_line_match.py#L45-L54

opw-5911526

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263848
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#257827

Steps to reproduce:
- Activate Anglo-Saxon accounting
- Create a product with track inventory and an automated inventory valuation product category
- Define MTO on the product
- Add this product to an Analytic Distribution Model (i.e. Legal)

- Create a SO for this product
- Create and confirm the PO related to it, the Analytic account is set on the PO.
- Confirm the reception of the product
- This creates a Stock valuation layer with the Analytic account
- Confirm the SO
- Confirm the delivery of the product
- This creates a Stock valuation layer with the Analytic account too
- Create the Invoice

Issue:
Missing analytic account on the 110300 Stock Interim (Delivered) creating unabalanced analytic accounting

Other:
test_report_invoice_items_anglo_saxon_automatic_valuation
introduced in this PR https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/205777
checks that in a project's analytic report, the values based
on cogs lines are displayed in the cost section.
With this fix, both cogs lines will have an analytic account
so their impact on the project analytic report will even out.
This made the test fail.
To keep the benefit of this test, we simulate that the user manually
removes the analytic account on some of the cogs lines
(those targetting stock interim received).


opw-6060567

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#261798