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

Problem:
In email templates, adding a banner/info block and saving then reloading causes the horizontal padding to be lost and the icon to become misaligned.

Cause:
During save, `convert_inline` processes the content via `_normalizeStyle`, which iterates over `CSSStyleDeclaration` using index-based iteration. This only yields longhand properties (e.g. `padding-left`, `padding-top`), never shorthands like `padding`. When the shorthand contains `var()` references (e.g. `padding: var(--y) var(--x)`), the browser cannot resolve the longhands and leaves them empty, so they are silently dropped during style extraction. Adding shorthand support to the iterator was not viable, as the rest of the pipeline expects longhand-only styles, and safely converting `padding: var(--y) var(--x)` to longhands is not possible without first resolving the variables.

Solution:
Replace the `padding` shorthand in the banner template with explicit longhand properties (`padding-top`, `padding-bottom`, `padding-left`, `padding-right`).

Steps to reproduce:
1. Open an email template
2. Add a banner/info block
3. Save the template
4. Reload the page
5. Observe horizontal padding is lost and icon is misaligned

task-6230530

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265756

### Issue:

During migration of Malta taxes, the script can fail when certain tax XML IDs are missing for a company. If the XML ID does not exist, `env.ref(..., raise_if_not_found=False)` returns None. Trying to combine a recordset with None causes the migration to fail. Due to recent [commit]

### Traceback:
```py
    tax_7 |= env.ref(f'account.{company.id}_VAT_S_IN_MT_7_G', raise_if_not_found=False)
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/odoo/orm/models.py", line 6589, in __or__
    return self.union(other)
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/odoo/orm/models.py", line 6603, in union
    raise TypeError(f"unsupported operand types in: {self} | {arg!r}")
TypeError: unsupported operand types in: account.tax() | None
```
### 
Solution:

Use a guard check with the walrus operator (:=) to assign and validate the tax record before union.
This ensures that only existing tax records are added to the recordset, preventing the crash.

Ticket [link1](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project.task/6159300) [link2](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project.task/6149387)
opw-6159300 
opw-6149387

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264327

### Steps to reproduce:

- In the settings enable: Multi-steps routes
- Inventory > Configuration > Warehouse Management > Routes
- Unarchive MTO
- Create a storable product P with a bom using the MTO Route
- In the Miscellaneous tab of the bom tick Batch Size and set it to 2
- Create and confirm a sale order for 6 units of P
#### > Three MO's are created but only the last one will update the quantities of the delivery at validation of the production.

### Cause of the issue:

The `move_dest_ids` of the `move_finished_ids` is only set on the last of the three productions. That is only the last MO is properly chained to the delivery via an MTO chain. This happens because the `move_dest_ids` field of the `mrp.production` model is a `One2Many` field: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/a2f072fe99a03aaf521bba1965e7f29a1c99e325/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L223-L224 Which implies that each move can be linked to at most one mrp.production via the `created_production_id` field. However, if you have set a batch size on your bom, it is expected for a single move to create multiple mo's. While the `move_dest_ids` of each of these MO is appropriately set in the create vals to be the mto `stock.move` of the delivery, due to the nature of the `created_production_id` field only the *last* mo will created with a set `move_dest_ids` as this is the only record that will be set as `created_production_id`. However, after the creation of these MO's, the related `move_finished_ids` will be recomputed:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/a2f072fe99a03aaf521bba1965e7f29a1c99e325/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L1089-L1093 However, the `move_dest_ids` of the created moves will be set to be either the `move_dest_ids` of their production (which is unset for all but the last one) or these of the first production of the same `production_group` that is these generated by a common production split: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/a2f072fe99a03aaf521bba1965e7f29a1c99e325/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L1263-L1267
Now, since neither are set in our use case, the `move_dest_ids` will not be set on the `move_finished_ids` which implies in particular that the mto link between our productions (but the last one) and the delivery is lost.

Fix:

Since we can not change the nature of the `move_dest_ids` and `created_production_id` in stable to become Many2Many fields, we need to find a way to propagate the `move_dest_ids` on moves without relying on the probably inaccurate value provided by the production. And, since the compute of the `move_finished_ids` could be launched at many other points than during a create process (because of the many dependencies), we can not solely rely on the creation context but rather new to provide a way to recreate the link from relations at any given point. We therefore rely on the `stock.reference`'s similar to what was done prior to 19.0 via the `procurement_group_ids`: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/132f042ca14012877f608783b57a0ca9c4e565f3/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L1198-L1202

opw-6188069

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264951

Problem:
Undo does not work correctly after inserting a table of content when no paragraph follows it.

Cause:
`SelectionPlaceholderPlugin.onSelectionChange` clears attributes from the next base container and adds a history step whenever the selection changes.

In the table of content case, this creates a loop:
- Attributes are cleared and a history step is added.
- Undo restores only the cleared attributes.
- The selection falls back into the empty paragraph after the table of content.
- `SelectionPlaceholderPlugin.onSelectionChange` runs again and adds another history step.

As a result, undo never reaches the previous user action.

Solution:
Avoid adding a history step in
`SelectionPlaceholderPlugin.onSelectionChange` when the current step is
not modified by any user interaction.

Steps to reproduce:
- Write some text.
- Insert a table of content using `/toc`.
- Press Ctrl + Z.
- Observe that nothing happens and the previously typed text cannot be undone.

task-6216910

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264743

**Issue**:
When the name of a MO changes before confirmation, the picking origin
may remain incorrect after confirmation.

**Steps to reproduce**:
- Make sure that multi-step route is enabled in the settings
- Configure the manufacturing route as 2-step
- Go to Inventory > Configuration > Warehouse Management > Operations Types
- Clone the "Manufacturing" operation type and assign a different Sequence Prefix
- Create and save a MO, without confirming it
- Change and save the operation type to the cloned one (the MO name changes)
- Confirm the MO
-> The picking source document uses the previous MO name instead of the new one

**Cause**:
The source document of the picking (`origin`) comes from its move:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/95c73aa4dd7433f394799fdaaad57a84d750ec5a/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1526
The move origin comes from the procurement values:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/95c73aa4dd7433f394799fdaaad57a84d750ec5a/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1575C13-L1575C56
Which relies on `self.reference_ids[0].name`:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/95c73aa4dd7433f394799fdaaad57a84d750ec5a/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1639
which is never updated, causing the origin to keep the previous MO name.

opw-5979778

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#255874

**Issue**
Replenishment quantity is not rounded when the replenishment UoM is the
same as the product UoM.

**Steps to reproduce**:
- Enable "Units of Measure & Packagings" setting
- Create a tracked product and add a vendor using the same uom (ex: Unit)
- Create a replenishment order rule:
	- min = 0
	- max = 10
	- multiple: Unit
- Create a sale order for that product with 1.11 units
-> It tries to replenish 11.11 units instead of 12

**Cause**:
While computing `qty_to_order`, it rounds using the given multiple via `_get_multiple_rounded_qty`:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/995629db3231de944710751c3184bf1b8b1355c7/addons/stock/models/stock_orderpoint.py#L471-L475
However, `_get_multiple_rounded_qty` skips rounding when the replenishment
UoM matches the product UoM:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/995629db3231de944710751c3184bf1b8b1355c7/addons/stock/models/stock_orderpoint.py#L802-L809

opw-[6015189](https://www.odoo.com/web#id=6015189&view_type=form&model=project.task)

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#256006

[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

**Issue:**
The account_online_payment module overrides `action_draft` to raise a UserError for sepa_ct payments belonging to a batch with a `payment_online_status` = 'pending' or 'accepted'.
This blocks the bank statement unreconciliation process. When `delete_reconciled_line` is called, it tries to set payments to draft and re-post them, despite it being an internal process not a manual user modification.

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Setup a 'sepa_ct' payment method on a bank journal.
- Create a bill with a vendor with a trusted bank account.
- Create a payment for that bill with a 'sepa_ct' payment method.
- Add the payment to a batch.
- Manually set the `payment_online_status` = 'pending'.
- Create a bank transaction and reconcile it with the batch.
- Try to unreconcile the lines on the transaction
- Result: UserError 'You cannot modify a payment that has already been sent to the bank.'

**Fix:**
Pass a context flag to `action_draft` during the unreconciliation flow so that the validation is skipped when the call originates from the internal unreconcile flow.

OPW-6080464

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117921

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

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

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

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

opw-6189225

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265914
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264083

Currently, an error is produced when sending invoices to MyInvois if the invoice number uses a year-range sequence.

**Steps to Reproduce:(v-19.0)**
1. Install the `accountant` and `l10n_my_edi` modules (with demo data).
2. Switch to "MY Company"(Malaysian company).
3. Enable "_Quick Encoding_" for Customer Invoices in Settings.
4. Create a customer invoice with customer "_MY Company_", set a Malaysian classification code and taxes on the invoice line, and confirm the invoice.
5. Set the invoice back to Draft and modify the invoice number with a year-range sequence (e.g., INV/2025-2026/00001), then confirm it again.
6. Open the invoice list view and click **"Send to MyInvois"**.

**Error:**
`ValueError: not enough values to unpack (expected 4, got 2)`

The `_get_sequence_date_range()` method on `myinvois.document` overrides the method from `sequence.mixin` and returns only two values from `date_utils.get_fiscal_year()`. However, it expects the method to return four values at [1].

[1] - https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/57b6b8d63b038ede32dfcc833c30e93d0cf4166c/addons/account/models/sequence_mixin.py#L146
Ref: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/1ce06257f877711bd5de5487364909d72b476318/addons/account/models/account_move.py#L4263

sentry-7320998540

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#266221
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#253237

On /shop, when a snippet block sits above the searchbar, the search dropdown was rendered partially hidden behind that block (cropped/unreadable items).

Steps to reproduce:
===================
1. Go to /shop.
2. Add a snippet block above the searchbar.
3. Type in the searchbar.

=> Observed: search results appear cropped, with upper items
   hidden behind the snippet block above.

Root cause:
===========
the products grid column (`#products_grid`) has `overflow: auto`, https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/d9bb1c1dc90f97b63b87ad762fc4ab36abf7e05f/addons/website_sale/static/src/scss/website_sale.scss#L442 which clips any absolutely-positioned descendant
that extends past its bounds. The dropdown's containing block is the searchbar `<form>` (position: relative), which lives inside that column. When the dropdown grew (or flipped to dropup) and extended outside the column, the part outside was clipped, and any positioned snippet siblings above the column painted over the clipped area.

Fix:
======
while the dropdown is mounted, lift the `overflow: auto` on its ancestor `div.col` so the menu can extend past the column and paint on top of other content. Done from JS so no SCSS rule has to target the searchbar-specific column.

opw-6216317

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265982
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265558

# The bug

When accessing a done transfer with two lines where one line has a result package ID and the other does not, the computed field `has_lines_without_result_package` returns `True`. This field is used in the `stock_package_m2m` widget to append a `No package` tag when a move has this field set.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/eaa6c4352aec2be8519360c282f3f6504a2f263c/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L266-L269

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/eaa6c4352aec2be8519360c282f3f6504a2f263c/addons/stock/static/src/widgets/stock_package_m2m.js#L9-L24

This works fine when package history exists, as it accesses the `package_ids` field to generate the tags. However, for recently upgraded databases, no package history is available. When the `_compute_package_ids` method runs, it attempts to access data from an undefined history record, triggering a traceback.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/eaa6c4352aec2be8519360c282f3f6504a2f263c/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L271-L278

# The fix

The fix is straightfoward: in `_compute_package_ids`, if a move is in the `done` or `cancel` state and has no package history, we fallback and populate `package_ids` using the same logic applied to states other than `done` or `cancel`. This behavior specifically targets and fixes issue for databases recently upgraded to v19.

task: 6070541


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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265032

#### Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:
The "Stock Account: Inventory Valuation Closing" cron is meant to post valuation journal entries for companies configured with periodic inventory valuation. Due to a faulty domain in ResCompany._cron_post_stock_valuation, monthly companies are never processed, and on the last day of the month daily companies are also skipped. As a result, no inventory valuation journal entries are ever generated by this cron for periodic-valuation companies.

#### Current behavior before PR:
The cron's domain requires inventory_period = 'daily', which excludes monthly companies on every non-last day of the month. On the last day of the month, an extra AND clause is added requiring inventory_period = 'monthly'. Combined with the existing 'daily' clause, this produces a contradiction (period = 'daily' AND period = 'monthly') that matches no records, so daily companies are dropped on that day as well. Net effect: monthly companies are never processed, and daily companies are skipped on month-end.

#### Desired behavior after PR is merged:
On a non-last day of the month, the cron processes companies with inventory_period = 'daily'. On the last day of the month, the cron processes both 'daily' and 'monthly' companies, so monthly valuation entries are posted at month-end without dropping daily companies.

opw-6115649

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264298

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

**Problem:**
When a combo product has a price but all of its combo components have a zero list price, the quotation shows the combo's price twice: once on the combo line itself and once on the last combo item line.

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Create a combo product with a non-zero price and two or more combo groups whose component products have a zero list price.
2. Create a sale order, add the combo, pick one item per group.
3. Look at the quotation/order: the combo line total and the last combo-item line both show the full combo price.

**Current behavior:**
The full combo price ends up on the last combo item line; the other combo items show 0. The combo line then displays the same total via `_get_combo_totals`, so the same amount appears twice.

**Expected behavior:**
The combo's price is spread across its combo items so no single line duplicates the combo total.

**Cause of the issue:**
`_get_combo_item_display_price` prorates the combo price by each combo's base price. When every base price is 0, every prorated price is 0, so `combo_price_delta` equals the full combo price and is added to the last combo as a rounding correction, concentrating the whole price there instead of spreading it.

**Fix:**
Treat an all-zero base case as "no proration signal" and split the combo price evenly across combos before the delta adjustment runs. The delta correction then only handles rounding, as intended.

opw-6217945

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265010

## [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

## 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

opw-6211908 

## Summary

When selecting a vendor price from `product.supplierinfo`, the purchase module converts `purchase.order.date_order` (a `fields.Datetime` stored in UTC) to a `date` using Python's `.date()` method. This extracts the **UTC calendar date** rather than the user's local date.

For users in positive-offset timezones (e.g. `Pacific/Auckland` UTC+12, `Africa/Johannesburg` UTC+2), this produces the wrong day, causing `product.supplierinfo` records with `date_start`/`date_end` to be incorrectly included or excluded during vendor price selection.

### Affected methods

| File | Method |
|------|--------|
| `addons/purchase/models/purchase_order_line.py` | `_compute_selected_seller_id` |
| `addons/purchase/models/purchase_order_line.py` | `_prepare_purchase_order_line` |
| `addons/purchase/models/purchase_order.py` | `_get_product_catalog_lines_data` |

### Fix

Replace `.date()` calls with `fields.Date.context_today(record, timestamp=...)` which correctly converts the UTC datetime to the user's timezone before extracting the date.

Also fixes `fields.Date.today()` → `fields.Date.context_today(self)` in `_prepare_purchase_order_line` for consistency (same issue — `fields.Date.today()` returns UTC date, not the user's local date).

## Steps to reproduce

1. Set user timezone to **Pacific/Auckland** (UTC+12).
2. Create a product with a vendor pricelist (`product.supplierinfo`) entry:
   - **Vendor**: any partner
   - **Price**: 50.00
   - **Start Date**: 2026-05-13
   - **End Date**: 2026-05-31
3. Create a **Purchase Order** for that vendor.
4. Set the **Order Deadline** to **2026-05-13 08:00** NZST (stored as `2026-05-12 20:00 UTC`).
5. Add the product as a line on the PO.

**Expected**: The supplier price of 50.00 is selected — the user's local date (May 13) is within the validity window.

**Actual**: No supplier price is matched. `.date()` on the UTC datetime returns `2026-05-12`, which is before `date_start` of `2026-05-13`, so the supplierinfo record is skipped.

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263992

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

**Issue:** In Odoo 18/19, purchase move lines default to the WH's main stock location (`lot_stock_id`) as the `location_final_id`. However, when a user configures a sub-location on the Receipt Operation Type, the picking destination is correct, but the move lines are defaulted to the main warehouse. This mismatch causes the Forecasted Quantity to not increment for the intended sub-location

**Solution:** Prioritize the `default_location_dest_id` before falling back to the default stock location

opw-6032018

### **Current behavior before PR:** 
When confirming a PO, the `location_final_id` on stock moves defaults to the `lot_stock_id`, regardless of the specific destination set on the Operation Type. This causes a mismatch in 1-step receiving flows where a sub-location (e.g., WH/Stock/Test) is intended, since the move lines revert to the root warehouse location (WH/Stock). Thus, the forecasted quantity for the specific sub-location doesn't increment as expected.

### **Desired behavior after PR is merged:** 
The `_get_final_location_record` method will now evaluate if the Operation Type's `default_location_dest_id` is a child of the warehouse's main stock. If it is, the sub-location is used as the `location_final_id` for the moves and move lines. This ensures that the forecasted quantity reflects the intended destination upon PO confirmation while still maintaining the fallback to the warehouse root for standard multi-step routes.




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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#259233
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#254527