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

**Steps to produce:**
- Install `sale_mrp_renting`.
- Enable `Rental Transfers` from settings.
- Create a rental product.
- Create two variants of the product.
- Create a BoM for one variant and set its type to `Kit`.
- Create a rental order using the other variant.
- Try to confirm the order.

**Issue:**
In versions 17 and 18, a UserError is raised-
```
The unit of measure Units defined on the order line doesn't belong to the same
category as the unit of measure False defined on the product. Please correct
the unit of measure defined on the order line or on the product, they should
belong to the same category.
```

From version 18.2 onward, a different error occurs
```
ZeroDivisionError: float division by zero
```

**Root cause:**
In versions 17 and 18:  At [1], since the BoM is created for a different variant , no BoM is found for the selected variant. As a result, when `_compute_quantity` is called at [2], the `bom.product_uom_id` is empty, which leads to the `UserError` from  `_compute_quantity` method. In version 18.2+:  At [1], as the BoM is empty. Then at [3], `_compute_kit_quantities` is called with an empty BoM, and at [4], this results in a division by zero error.

**Solution:**
Skip the computation when no BoM is found and directly return the quantity to avoid both the `UserError` and the `ZeroDivisionError`.

[1]https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/eaa70dcab2b49eadca1cf36008dd80cfccbb8e4e/sale_mrp_renting/models/sale_order_line.py#L13
[2]https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/eaa70dcab2b49eadca1cf36008dd80cfccbb8e4e/sale_mrp_renting/models/sale_order_line.py#L20
[3]https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/eaa70dcab2b49eadca1cf36008dd80cfccbb8e4e/sale_mrp_renting/models/sale_order_line.py#L21
[4]
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/91b09dbea5c8a306b5e9d2120466777f0248b360/addons/mrp/models/stock_move.py#L676

**opw-6082434**

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118207
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#114176

**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

__

## Short functional explanation of the error
When checking the dashboard on a project we created with a yearly subscription, the values shown are incorrect.

## Reproduction Steps
1. Create a new product. Check the Subscription field and set the Product type as Service. On the Create on Order field, set Project & Task. Then, in the Recurring Price tab, add a Monthly plan with price 50 and yearly plan with price 40.
2. Create a new Quotation. Set a customer and add the product you just created in an Order line. Set the Quantity to 100 and set the recurring plan as Yearly. You'll see the amount be at 4000, and the total amount at 4600 with taxes. Click on Confirm.
3. Create an invoice and confirm it.
4. Click on the Project smart button. Then, on the top right, click on the view menu > Top Menu. Select Dashboard and click on it.

### Expected behavior
On the dashboard, we should see the Revenues under Profitability at 4000. To invoice should be left at 0 and Invoiced should be at
4000. Expected should be at 4000.

### Unexpected behavior
On the dashboard, To Invoice is at 333, and Expected is at 4333. This corresponds to our invoice + 4000/12 -> monthly recurring plan, with the price of the yearly plan!

## Origin of the issue
We always add the `recurring_monthly` value when showing the profitability, no matter the recurring plan:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/cdc0d5d57f6b27a6bb5e451d48bdbef4e3dde5cb/project_sale_subscription/models/project_project.py#L86
We should only add the `recurring_monthly` value for as many monthly
subscriptions we have, not for *all* the subscriptions.
__
opw-5916688

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117818
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#113918

### 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

The employment subsidy calculation was incorrect in two main scenarios:

### 1. Incorrect threshold prorating:

The system was comparing the salary against the full monthly limit even for partial periods (weekly or bi-weekly). This resulted in employees wrongly receiving the subsidy when their proportional salary actually exceeded the limit.

Example: In 2026, the 14-day threshold should be 5,292.67 (11,492.66 / 30.4 * 14). Currently, an employee earning 10,000.00 in those 14 days still gets the subsidy because it's being compared against the full 11,492.66.

### 2. Cumulative monthly cap:

When multiple payslips occur in the same month, the total subsidy sometimes exceeds the statutory monthly maximum (536.22 for 2026) because the cap wasn't enforced across all slips.

Example: The 2026 maximum monthly subsidy is 536.22. In a month with three partial payslips:
- Mar 1st - Mar 14th: The system grants 246.68.
- Mar 15th - Mar 28th: The system grants 246.68.
- Mar 29th - Apr 11th: For the 3 days belonging to March, the system grants an additional 52.86.
Total subsidy for March reaches 546.22, exceeding the legal cap.

### Changes included in this PR:
- Updated `l10n_mx_rule_parameter_uma` to include monthly and annual values. This prevents rounding discrepancies.
  Example: the 2026 annual UMA published is 42,794.64. In a rule the calculation is: l10n_mx_uma * 30.4 * 12 = 117.31 * 30.4 * 12 = 42,794.68 resulting in a ~0.04 difference.

- Create a new rule parameter `l10n_mx_rule_parameter_subsidy_salary_limit` to have the subsidy eligible threshold. Starting in 2026, the government's rounding changed from zero decimals(e.g., 9,081.00 in 2024, 10,171.00 in 2025) to two decimals (11,492.66). Storing these as explicit parameters avoids the precision errors.

- Added comprehensive unit tests covering:
  - Complete periods: validates standard payslips aligned with the month calendar (bi-monthly, monthly, bi-weekly).
  - Overlapping periods: validates split-month scenarios (14-day, 10-day, weekly) where periods cross month boundaries:
    Example of `test_subsidy_weekly`:
    This test covers 5 weekly payslips with the following subsidy distribution:
    - First payslip (Apr 29 - May 5), the subsidy is 35.24 for April and 88.10 for May.
    - For the next 3 payslips fully in May, the subsidy is 123.34 each.
      Payslip 2 (May 6 - May 12): Subsidy for May = 123.34
      Payslip 3 (May 13 - May 19): Subsidy for May = 123.34
      Payslip 4 (May 20 - May 26): Subsidy for May = 123.34
    - Last payslip (May 27 - June 2), the subsidy is 77.53 for May and
      35.24 for June.
  - Across years: subsidy amounts and limits are updated annually.
    Therefore, if a period overlaps two years, a salary amount might be eligible for a subsidy in January but not in the previous December, and the paid subsidy is increased in January due to the new limits.

- Cleaned up redundant tests (test_regular_payslip_subsidy) and adjusted decimal precision.

- For split-month `schedule_pay` periods, the first payslip might generate a subsidy. However, in subsequent payslips, due to commissions or a wage increase, the employee may exceed the monthly subsidy salary limit.
  In those payslips, a warning is shown to notify the user that a manual adjustment is required.
  Created tests to validate these cases.

target: 19.0
task-5419659

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#116298
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#107601

### 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#255399
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#254245

It is possible to order as many products as we want of a rental product
that synchronizes shifts depending on a specific service

Steps to reproduce:
1. Install website_sale_renting_planning module
2. Go to Rental > Products and create a new product "test" with Sales enabled, Product Type "Service", Plan Services enabled as "Developer", in the Sales tab, enable Is Published and in the Rental prices tab, create a pricing for Daily period
3. In the General Information tab, click on the internal link to "Developer"
4. Enable Sync Shifts and Rental Orders
5. Go to the eCommerce website and search for product "test"
6. You can add as many quantity of the product to your cart

Issue:
We don't limit the maximum quantity of the product

Solution:
Look through the renting availabilities of the product and set the
maximum quantity to the minimum of the availabilities relevant to the
renting dates selected

opw-6009928

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#113525
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#111793

this pr fixes 3 bug, as all are closely related.

Step to reproduce (hide is_custom attr in kiosk mode):
- have two attributes A and B
- A has only 1 attribute value with is_custom = True
- B can have any two value ( ex. gender: male/female)
- use it on a product  and make it available in POS for kiosk
- start kiosk and open that product

Observation:
- we do not get option to select option from A but the heading is visible
- when we select from B, Add to cart is disabled.

Cause:
- we do not allow attribute values with is_custom = True in kiosk
- but we display the attribute regardless
- the Add to cart btn depends on `selectedValues`, which requires
value from each attribute, in this case, we are not seletion anything from A
- so it is disabled

Fix:
- we introduced  `attributesToDisplay` which will hide heading in case of single
custom value for any attribute
- for Add to cart, wenow do not expect value from `is_custom`  attribute values.

 Allow product with 1 attr which is `is_custom` to be
 configurable in configs other than kiosk) correct fix for commit

 Step to reproduce
- have attributes A
- A has only 1 attribute value with is_custom = True
- use it on a product and make it available in POS
- start pos and open that product

Observation:
- we do not get option to select add text for A

Cause:
- in pos, we consider product to be configurable only it has more than 1
attributes, which misses is_custom attr

Fix:
- we backport commit[1] and also considers its side effect by introducing
`isProductConfigurable` for pos_self_order, which will still avoid
`is_custom` attrs for kiosk

[1] https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/5155c77a03ed2ff6c914eac41cc81ccb34b1f3c7

Empty page is displayed if product has only `is_custom` attribute value
and other attribute with type other then 'no_variant' for combo item

 Step to reproduce
- have attributes A and B
- A has only 1 attribute value with is_custom = True
- B has two values with type "always"
- use it on a product and add that product in combo item and make it available
  in Kisok
- start kiosk and open that combo and select that product

Observation:
- we do not get option to select

Cause:
- `availableAttributeValue` only show `no_variant` and non `is_custom` attribute
   values in attributeSelection component.

Fix:
- before mounting Attributeselection component, we check if product has required
  attribute or not.

opw-6100965

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265763
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#257880

## 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#266392
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