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

### **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

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

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

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

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

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

opw-5911526

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

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

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

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

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

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


opw-6060567

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#261798

**PROBLEM**
In some case, because of rounding issues, the withholding base amount can be bigger than the total amount of the invoice, which should not be the case.

**STEP TO REPRODUCE**

1. Install l10n_pe_edi
2. Create an invoice with those 2 lines: qty: 300, unit_price: 0.481936, tax: VAT 18% + 3% IGV Withholding qty: 300, unit_price: 0.747376, tax: VAT 18% + 3% IGV Withholding
3. Confirm the invoice, and send the xml (if this fail, you may have to change the name of the invoice, using odoo inspector or other means).
4. Open the xml, and notice the base amount for the allowance on the document level is 435.18 which is bigger than the invoice payable amount.

**CAUSE**
We exclude the withholding taxes to compute the invoice taxInclusiveAmount. When computing this amount, we round the line base and the tax total of the VAT 18% tax leading to the result of 435.17. When creating the allowance node for the Withholding taxes, the base used for the withholding taxes is the sum of the line base, and the tax total of previous tax NOT rounded. There is no easy way to change the withholding tax computation, so we just limit the base to not be bigger than the invoice total when there is rounding issues.

opw-6010388

Steps to reproduce
1. Create a serial-tracked product with a subcontract BoM.
2. Create a receipt from the subcontractor for e.g. 5 units and confirm it.
3. Change the quantity to 3 and validate the receipt and click "Create Backorder" in the wizard.

Issue
Clicking "Create Backorder" raises "The serial number has already been
assigned" because the remainder backorder MO was silently assigned the
same serial as one of the recorded MOs, causing a quant uniqueness
violation.

When validating a serial-tracked subcontract receipt, `_auto_record_components`
splits the original MO into one MO per unit plus a remainder backorder MO,
and assigns a fresh serial to each recorded MO. It then calls
`subcontracting_record_component` which writes `lot_id` on reserved
`stock.move.line` records via `_update_finished_move`. The write override in
`stock.move.line` is meant to sync the matching MO's `lot_producing_id` when
a user changes a serial from A to B on a move line. Its filter at

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f251139ab668651cbd359fdae73befaf1683085b/addons/mrp_subcontracting/models/stock_move_line.py#L26

  p.lot_producing_id == move_line.lot_id

degenerates when the move line's previous `lot_id` is `False` (a freshly
reserved line with no prior lot) into "any open MO with no lot yet", which
matches the untouched remainder backorder MO and writes the just-assigned
serial onto it. All recorded MOs end up sharing the same serial number from
the contaminated backorder, triggering the duplicate quant error.

Solution
Guard the sync with `move_line.lot_id` at

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f251139ab668651cbd359fdae73befaf1683085b/addons/mrp_subcontracting/models/stock_move_line.py#L24

so it only runs when the move line already had a lot — i.e. the user is
replacing an existing serial — and not when one is being assigned for the
first time.

opw-6018243