The confidence threshold (requiring a 10% ranking advantage to confirm a
prediction) was a poor proxy for its actual goal: avoiding unwanted
overwrites of values the user had already set. It blocked helpful
predictions in ambiguous cases while still allowing unwanted ones.

Replace it with a direct check: disable prediction entirely when the line
already carried a label before the current edit. This is implemented by
overriding `onchange` to inspect the pending form values and inject a
context key before `_onchange_name_predictive` fires. Predictions now only
run on a blank slate — the first time a description is typed — which is
exactly when they are useful. The "anything is better than nothing"
philosophy then applies freely, without needing an artificial threshold.

At the same time, consolidate all field predictions (account, taxes,
product, deductible amount) into a single SQL query via a
`_predictive_field_getter` registry, making the feature cheaper to run
and straightforward to extend.

Note: the previous implementation seeded account predictions with account
names from the chart of accounts, improving cold-start accuracy for
partners with no history. This is dropped as a trade-off for the simpler
design.

task-6138749

## 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

**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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#113689

This commit resolves multiple issues in the Vietnamese accounting reports module:

1. Appendix 142 PDF Export Crash:
   - Extracted the PDF sectioning logic into a new `_get_pdf_sections` method.
   - Added safeguards to gracefully handle cases where the report has no lines, preventing an `IndexError` when attempting to access `lines[-1]`.
   - Added unit tests to ensure empty lines are correctly parsed without crashing.

2. XML Data and Dependency Fixes:
   - Fixed an invalid `report_id` reference in `account_return_data.xml` by correctly pointing it to `l10n_vn_reports.l10n_vn_tax_report` instead of `l10n_vn.form_01_gtgt_report`.
   - Reordered the `__manifest__.py` data loading sequence. `account_tax_report_data.xml` now loads before `account_return_data.xml` to prevent "External ID not found" errors during module installation/upgrades.

3. Naming and Sequencing Improvements:
   - Renamed "Vietnamese Tax Report" to "VAT Declaration - 01/GTGT" to reflect the actual Vietnamese tax form accurately.
   - Added explicit `sequence` fields to the tax reports (VAT Declaration: 10, Appendix 142: 20) to ensure proper UI ordering.

Task-6216318

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117974

**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#118134
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#113168

**Problem:**
When the user has dark mode enabled and a sign template contains a Selection field, both the displayed value and the dropdown option list are unreadable: the selected value renders white-on-white in the field, and clicking the dropdown shows an empty-looking popup (white options on white system menu).

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Enable dark mode in user preferences
2. Open Sign > Templates > duplicate any template
3. Add a Selection field with a few options (e.g. Low / Medium / High)
4. Save and Sign Now
5. Reach the Selection field and click it
6. Observe: the dropdown options are invisible (white on white) and, after picking one, the selected value in the field is also invisible

**Cause of the issue:**
The Selection sign item is rendered with a native `<select>` element inside the PDF.js iframe (`sign_items.xml`, `t-if="type == 'selection'"` branch). The iframe's stylesheet (`sign/static/src/css/iframe.css`) declares the `select` rule with `background: transparent` but no explicit `color`, and never styles `<option>` at all. When the OS or the user activates dark mode, the iframe document resolves to a `color-scheme: light dark` root, so the browser's UA stylesheet paints form controls with the dark palette (white text). The popup background stays white (`<option>` has no explicit background), so options render white-on-white. The same UA-white propagates to the displayed value of the `<select>` inside the pink-tinted sign item, which is also nearly white.

**Fix:**
Pinning the `<select>` text color and the `<option>` color/background to fixed light-mode values restores predictable contrast inside the iframe regardless of the surrounding color scheme. We deliberately do not rely on `color-scheme: dark` here — that would only swap which side of the contrast issue we land on (browsers don't reliably honor it for `<option>` background painting), and the sign item background (the pink dashed default style) is itself light, so dark option text on a white popup is the readable target in all themes.

opw-6197638

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117697

**Steps to Reproduce:**
1. Install `hr_contract_salary_payroll` with demo data.
2. Open Employee (e.g; Abigail Peterson) > Payroll tab > Gear Icon > Edit Properties.
3. Add a new property for Payroll and fill in the value also.
4. Go to Payroll > Configuration > Benefits.
5. Create a new benefit with:
   Salary Structure Type: Worker
   Cost Field: Payroll Properties (Employee Contract)
6. Save the record.

Video: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gHRkDW5G0bURlo9_IRgCnvqpE-8Fk1xa/view?usp=drive_link

**Error:**
`TypeError - unsupported operand type(s) for +: 'int' and 'Property'`

**Cause:**
The method `_get_benefits_costs()` directly sums values using: 
```
self[benefit.cost_field]
```
When the selected cost field is a property field, it returns a **fields_properties.Property** object instead of a numeric value, and this object is not directly compatible with the arithmetic sum operation.

Before 19.0, property fields were not allowed to be selected as a cost field - [1].

**Fix:**
This commit prevents selecting property fields as cost fields from the list of supported field types.

[1] : https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/04224abcc7eec1c81df7ad57a9213fd091774888/hr_contract_salary/models/hr_version.py#L183

sentry-7388663038

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#116511
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#113238