…to hours

## Issue:
'request_hour_from' and 'request_hour_to' should be computed using the default
 calendar attendance values, but instead they display 12:00 AM, meaning their
values remain 0.0.

## Steps to Reproduce:

- Open the Time Off app.
- Configure a Time Off Type with the Duration Type (request_unit) set to Hours.
- Set this Time Off Type as the default one while creating a new Time Off.
- Create a new Time Off request.
- Observe that 'request_hour_from' and 'request_hour_to' are not computed and display 12:00 AM (0.0).

## Root Cause:
While fixing the issue related to preserving leave hours when changing Time Off Types, a regression was introduced.

Related PR: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/227235

During the creation of a new Time Off with the duration type set to Hours by default, the field 'request_unit_hours' is already True. This prevents the computation of 'request_hour_from' and 'request_hour_to', resulting in both values remaining 0.0.

## Solution:
Compute 'request_hour_from' and 'request_hour_to' when their values are still 0.0 (initial Time Off creation case), and skip recomputation only when switching between Time Off Types in order to preserve manually entered hours.

Steps to reproduce : [Video](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P2MFIj8ZxFtFxv2FlX4Zdq6P-5veTxUb/view?usp=sharing)

OPW: 6209992

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#266104
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264707

# How to reproduce
- Start from a fresh database
- Install the account module
- Import companies with a data file. These companies need to have a country set and the
data file needs to contain some bad data
- Click on the Test button

# The problem
An Odoo Server Error is displayed saying : "savepoint xxx does not exist", which prevents
the import or hides other potential error. More importantly, the date is imported even though it was a test run.

# Cause
Importing companies with a country will import their respective l10n modules using
`button_immediate_install()` :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/6de867f1c92bacedc0574b63e9e6a2a57fe805dd/odoo/addons/base/models/res_company.py#L319-L322
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/661ddbb7f12e32394a3c11b5a4cd2f38a9e156f5/odoo/addons/base/models/res_company.py#L237

This import calls `cr.commit` :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/661ddbb7f12e32394a3c11b5a4cd2f38a9e156f5/odoo/addons/base/models/ir_module.py#L632-L634

The issue is that when importing a data file, we create savepoints :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/661ddbb7f12e32394a3c11b5a4cd2f38a9e156f5/odoo/orm/models.py#L971-L974

And if an error arise during our import, we rollback to the appropriate save point. Sadly,
commiting erases any existing save point, so a savepoint error is rased and the
data is not rolled back.

The problem stems from the fact that importing module is simply not transactionnal and
`button_immediate_install()` is not expected to be called with a savepoint. This
was already partly adressed by :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/66dcee9aa70dc72a332fde64dbc802266bbe4a5a

But it did not cover the file importing case

opw-6174983

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265188

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

Issue
-----
Forced full packaging reservation setting is ignored when there is a big quant in stock.

Steps to reproduce
-----
- Enable packagings
- Create a product category "Super Category"
    - Reserve Packagings: Reserve Only Full Packagings
- Create a stored product "AAA"
    - Product Category: Super Category
    - 50 units on hand
    - Packaging: 6-Pack (6 units)
- Create a delivery for 15 units of AAA

> Reservation is made for 15 units

Cause
-----
The rounding to a multiple of the packaging quantity takes the stock quant into account. For our example case, we have 8 full 6-Packs on hand, so the `available_quantity` gets set to 48 when doing

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5e458236ca2ff2ab92c4893495e7a721be902c40/addons/stock/models/stock_quant.py#L923-L925

This leads to the reservation quantity being min(15, 48) = 15

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5e458236ca2ff2ab92c4893495e7a721be902c40/addons/stock/models/stock_quant.py#L927

-----
Ticket:
opw-5974333

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263934
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#257342

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 self._overlapping_period("weekly", 7, 2646.33, (35.24, 88.10), (3, 123.34), (77.53, 35.24))
    This test covers 5 weekly payslips with the following subsidy
    distribution:
    - Tuple `first_payslip` => (35.24, 88.10) means that:
      First payslip (Apr 29 - May 5), the subsidy is 35.24 for April and 88.10 for May.
    - Tuple `mid_payslips` => (3, 123.34) means that:
      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
    - Tuple `last_payslip` => (77.53, 35.24) means that:
      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#116779
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#107601

Issue before this commit:
=========================
For products tracked by serial/lot with packaging units, the delivery slip correctly shows the packaging unit and quantity before validating the transfer. However, after validating the transfer, the packaging unit and its corresponding quantity are no longer displayed in the delivery slip report.

Steps to Reproduce:
=========================
1. Install stock and sale_management modules.
2. Enable Units of Measure & Packagings and Display Lots & Serial Numbers on Delivery Slips from settings.
3. Create a product with tracking by lot/serial number and configure a packaging unit.
4. Create a SO using this product with a packaging unit and confirm it.
5. Open the related transfer and print the delivery slip before and after validation.

Cause of the Issue:
=========================
The delivery slip report template (stock_report_delivery_has_serial_move_line) does not display packaging unit information after validation for move lines when the packaging unit differs from the product unit of measure.

With This Commit:
=========================
This commit ensures that packaging units and their corresponding quantities are displayed on the delivery slip after validation when the packaging unit differs from the product unit of measure.

Steps To Reporduce: [Video Link](https://drive.google.com/file/d/10DmFKW1Y_Tm-AyKzPrqtFMY8orBkKbIm/view?usp=sharing)

opw-6142052

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#266028
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265206

### 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

[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

### 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

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

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

**Problem:**
Clicking the timesheet timer in the systray while viewing a subtask raises a MissingError, preventing the user from starting the timer.

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Open a project task that has subtasks
2. Click the subtasks smart button and open a subtask
3. Click the timesheet timer icon in the systray
4. Observe the "missing record" error

**Current behavior:**
The systray RPC fails with MissingError.

**Expected behavior:**
The timer opens, with the subtask's project and task prefilled.

**Cause of the issue:**
The frontend sends `currentState.active_id` regardless of the model it refers to. When the user navigates to a subtask via the smart button, `active_id` is the parent task's id. The systray controller then does `request.env['project.project'].browse(active_id)`, which returns a truthy recordset for an id that does not exist in `project_project`. Reading `.allow_timesheets` on that recordset triggers the DB fetch and raises MissingError. The same pattern exists in the `helpdesk_timesheet` override for both the `project.task` and `helpdesk.ticket` branches.

**Fix:**
Adding `.exists()` after the browse validates the recordset before any field access, so a stray `active_id` falls through to the task's own project (or ticket's project) instead of crashing.

opw-6169548

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117039

### Issue:

The `Print Label`, `Register Production`, `Register By-products`and `Register Consumed Materials` are all available in the test types at control point creation.

### Expected behavior:

These test types are only meant for manufacturing operations and are supposed to be hidden by the field domain:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/f56aa85b4ad32c5d9ad5593df1366d72e88da0e4/mrp_workorder/models/quality.py#L102-L104 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/00d6cccd75c402378698a6fd11ee2692f2361c7f/mrp_workorder/models/quality.py#L20-L24

### Cause of the issue:

Since saas-18.1: 5ef007a2116e528b796ebe80fb291ba5f1a94c8f domains are optimised into equivalents SQL clause with better sql performances. This optimization results in the following match for boolean fields: 
`('field', '=', True)` -> `('field', 'in', OrderedSet([True]))` 
`('field', '=', False)` -> `('field', ' not in', OrderedSet([True]))`
Because of these:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/82b16e8feb3d60a9a3855e3adb3164ae5a6c041d/odoo/orm/domains.py#L1058-L1079 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/82b16e8feb3d60a9a3855e3adb3164ae5a6c041d/odoo/orm/domains.py#L1215-L1236
Now the issue is that the specific `search_method` of the `allow_registration` field is then called with this optimized domain: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/82b16e8feb3d60a9a3855e3adb3164ae5a6c041d/odoo/orm/domains.py#L860-L866 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/00d6cccd75c402378698a6fd11ee2692f2361c7f/mrp_workorder/models/quality.py#L20-L24
And since `value` is defined as a non empty ordered set in both cases it the search method returns a True leaf as search domain.

opw-5915197

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118073
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117068

__
## Short functional explanation of the error
When setting attendances on several consecutive days for a flexible employee, with an overtime ruleset containing a single rule. This rule being based on week and quantity.
When regenerating overtimes for this ruleset, the overtime hours generated isn't correct.

## Reproduction Steps
1. Create an employee. In the Payroll tab, set a start date for their contract. Set Work Entry Source as Attendances. Set their Working Hours as a flexible schedule. Set their weekly hours at 40.
2. Create an Overtime Ruleset. Add a single rule, based on Quantity, if the worked hours on a `Week` differs `from the amount defined on the contract`. Check Pay Extra Hours and leave the Work Entry Type to use as Overtime Hours.
3. Go back to the employee. In Settings, set the Overtime Ruleset field as the new Overtime Ruleset you just created.
4. Create 5 attendances, each from 8 am to 6 pm, from Monday to Friday.
5. Go to the Overtime Ruleset you just created and click on Regenerate Overtimes.
6. Go back to Attendances. Search for your employee, and click on the list view.

### Expected behavior
The employee's schedule is 40 hours per week. They worked 50 hours. 10 hours should be considered as Worked Extra Hours.

### Unexpected behavior
18 hours are considered as extra hours.

## Origin of the issue
To compute the expected duration of the day, we run: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/7fc5edc29f854d619dbcb5fcc3503fb18ca05335/addons/hr_attendance/models/hr_attendance_overtime_rule.py#L303-L304 where `schedule['work']` will contain intervals on 5 consecutive days, from 8 am to 4 pm.
However, the last day of the employee's attendances isn't contained in these intervals. As a result, `period_schedule` will contain 4 days (the common days between the employee's Attendance days and `schedule['work']` ) and thus, `expected_duration` will be set at 36 hours instead of 40.
In the case where overtimes are computed based on hours from the 
contract, for flexible employees, the expected hours are the ones
indicated on their schedule.

__
opw-6131543

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265120
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263335

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

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

### 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

**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

#### 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

## [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

[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

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

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

## 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

**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

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Go to Documents app in mobile
- Go to the kanban view
- Add some files and select one
- Click on `Info & Tags` button in the control panel
- Reload the page
- Chatter is not displayed but the button is still enabled
- Switching to the list view properly shows it

**Issue:**
We have two conflicting css styling on mobile:
- `overflow-hidden` was added for mobile to avoid multiple scroll bars
- `min-height: 100%` which is due to the default `o_kanban_ungrouped` in the controller css

This means that the element is present at the bottom of the page, but we can't get to it manually.
When re-enabling the action we are properly moved to the existing chatter (but we can't go back to the top).

Also the documents panel should have a single scrollbar to display all the records, but we still need a way to scroll the messages of the chatter.

**Fix:**
Set `min-height: 0;` for documents kanban to ensure the chatter is still visible and accessible on mobile by default. This makes the chatter take the full available height when displayed.

original overflow fix: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/945b9e2b1c6752bd905695aa40b0babcf38c50cd

opw-6061993

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#113168

Currently, an error occurs when the user checks the report line errors.

**Steps to Reproduce:**

 - Install the `l10n_hk_hr_payroll_empf` module with demo data.
 - Switch to the `Hong Kong` company.
 - Go to `Payroll` > `Reporting` > `Hong Kong` > `eMPF Contributions`.
 - Create a record by setting the `Scheme` and adding a `contribution line`.
 - Ensure that the employee and payslip fields are empty in the contribution line.
 - Click on `Validate`, then click on the `error icon` on the report line.

`ValueError: Expected singleton: hr.version()`

This error occurs when the user manually adds a line and checks the errors on it.. The system 
attempts to open the employee record from the version [1], but the version is not set [2] on the 
line because there is no employee. And it raise the error [3].

This commit ensures that when checking errors, if the version is not set on the line, a UserError 
is raised, prompting the user to set the employee on the line. It also corrects a typo in the status 
message.

[1]- https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/7889b2b0b3d13b32e6e36e616e20379d8c8f8812/l10n_hk_hr_payroll_empf/model/l10n_hk_empf_contribution_report_line.py#L219

[2]- https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/7889b2b0b3d13b32e6e36e616e20379d8c8f8812/l10n_hk_hr_payroll_empf/model/l10n_hk_empf_contribution_report_line.py#L142-L156

[3]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/98855c6b70df24500babe6027109aa9e17431ec1/addons/hr/models/hr_version.py#L609-L611

[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

**Steps to reproduce:**

- Setup a Verifactu installation and a Spanish company
- Go to the PoS, make a Sale
- Keep the ticket
- Go to the /pos/ticket URL and enter the ticket informations
- Last step also works when requesting an invoice in the backend on the order
- Go to the order in the backend, an error is shown, the cancellation didn't go through
**Veri*Factu documents can only be generated for paid or posted Point of Sale Orders.**

**Why the fix:**

When we directly invoice an order, we do not go through the verification of being paid and done. This is why is works, but when making the invoice after the sale is done, we cancel the order first, then we register the invoice instead. When trying to cancel the order, we check if the order is either paid or done, but it is currently invoiced as we just generated the invoice.

We now allow no errors if the order is in the invoiced state, and let it pass through.
With this flow we get the same result as the direct invoice from the PoS.

The new cancellation on the order  and submission on the invoice may take a bit of time to get accepted but they will be eventually.

opw-6139200

## 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

Steps to reproduce:
-----------------------------------
1. Install Subscription module
2. Create and Confirm Subscription Order as follows: * Create 2 SOL with the same product with different quantities
3. Create and Confirm the Invoice of the Sale Order
4. Create an Upsell of the SO
5. Change the First line's quantity to any value (e.g, 3)
6. Confirm the Upsell Order
7. Go back to the original order

Observation:
-----------------------------------
The quantity added in Upsell is added to the quantity of the Second line of the Original Order.

Issue:
-----------------------------------
The `_compute_parent_line_id` method matches upsell lines to their parent lines based on product attributes (product_id, price_unit, product_uom_id, currency_id, plan_id). When multiple parent lines have identical attributes, the matching becomes ambiguous.

The algorithm processes upsell lines sequentially and removes each matched parent from the pool.
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/4c9682e9cf84a0e4e69b5b650833cbccc77b063e/sale_subscription/models/sale_order_line.py#L336-L337

Without a stable identifier like a sequence, the algorithm takes the LAST matching line arbitrarily, causing incorrect parent-child mappings.

Solution:
-----------------------------------
Using 'sequence' as the matching criteria in `_compute_parent_line_id`, Sequence provides a stable, predictable identifier that preserves line order. Lines with the same product attributes but different sequences will now match correctly based on their position in the order.

Added 'sequence' to line_values in `_get_renew_upsell_values` because the `parent_line_id` field is a COMPUTED field (with `store=True`). When creating upsell lines, even though we set `'parent_line_id': line.id` in the values, Odoo will recompute it using `_compute_parent_line_id`. If we don't preserve the sequence from the parent line, the newly created upsell line will get a default/auto-incremented sequence that doesn't match its parent's sequence. This breaks the sequence-based matching we just added.

opw-6083153