Version:
---------
- 19.0+

Steps to reproduce:
--------------------

1.Install modules `sale_management`, `purchase`, and `mrp`.
2. Go to Settings and enable the MTO (Replenish on Order) route.
3. Create a product with:

       i. Configure a Vendor under the Purchase tab.
      ii. Set the route to MTO.
     iii. Create a Bill of Materials for the product.
5. Create a Sale Order with the configured product and confirm it.
6. Open the generated Manufacturing Order.
7. Duplicate the Manufacturing Order.

Issue:
------

* The duplicated Manufacturing Order shows a smart button
linked with the Sale Order, which is incorrect.

Root Cause:
------------
 This issue is coming form this [Commit](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/2713876dbc70d3984e584a9037a2206dcda4e84a#diff-2b9de2e50ff5e1dc0362b825bac2b07623770fb3275b3257ef972f255f3ccb8b) 

* During Sale Order confirmation, the flow
`action_confirm` → `_action_confirm` → `_action_launch_stock_rule`
→ `run` → `_run_pull` → `_action_confirm` calls
`_prepare_procurement_values`.
which gather all procurement values.
In sale_stock, the super call adds `sale_line_id` to the
generated Manufacturing Order when using MTO:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0352c5e8543b75083cf555c3d5b4f164f949b465/addons/sale_stock/models/stock.py#L138-L140

* So, when the Sale Order is confirmed, the generated
Manufacturing Order contains sale_line_id, and when this
Manufacturing Order is duplicated, the sale_line_id is also
copied.

* In sale_mrp, the smart button uses sale_line_id to compute
the linked Sale Order count:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0352c5e8543b75083cf555c3d5b4f164f949b465/addons/sale_mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L19

Solution:
-----------
* Prevent copying of sale_line_id when duplicating a
Manufacturing Order, ensuring duplicated records are not
linked to any Sale Order.

---

opw-6113149


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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#259128

Currently, an error will occur when user puts Date of Salary Increase in the past on the salary increase wizard.

Steps to replicate:
- Install `hr_payroll` and create a new employee.
- From the cog menu click `Salary Increase`.
- Put any date from the past in the `Date of Salary Increase` field.

Error:
```py
File '/home/odoo/src/enterprise/saas-19.3/hr_payroll/wizard/hr_payroll_salary_increase_wizard.py', line 43, in _get_affected_version_ids
    increase_base_version = employee.version_ids.filtered_domain([('date_version', '<=', self.increase_date)])[-1]
File '/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.3/odoo/orm/models.py', line 6135, in __getitem__
    ids = (self._ids[key],)
IndexError: tuple index out of range
```

Cause:
- When the user changes the salary increase date, it triggers the [compute], which calls `_get_affected_version_ids()`. In this method, employee versions [1] are filtered to keep only those whose `date_version` is less than or equal to the selected increase date.

- For newly created employees, version_ids typically contain only an initial version with date_version set to today's date. Therefore, when the selected salary increase date is earlier than today, the filter returns an empty recordset, which later causes the crash when accessing the last record of that recordset.

Solution:
- Early returned empty recordsets when no matching employee versions are found for the selected increase date.

[compute]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/2a86967c1754f9c703a87c5d9ceb1d5f5d0ec26f/hr_payroll/wizard/hr_payroll_salary_increase_wizard.py#L34-L39

[1]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/2a86967c1754f9c703a87c5d9ceb1d5f5d0ec26f/hr_payroll/wizard/hr_payroll_salary_increase_wizard.py#L43

sentry-7498213478

The CTE `model_fees` is supposed to get the reconciliation models that match conditions that involves a join with the ir.model.data table. One of these conditions is filtering based on the `name` field with an `LIKE` operator.

On databases that has a GIST index on the field `name`, the planner will prefer to filter the records based using the GIST index and add the extra filters as a filtering criteria after the index condition if the index-condition wasn't possible to be switched to a range-query. The condition is supposed to be a prefix-matching, which can be evaluated directly by a B-TREE if the field had an index and the planner can convert the condition to a range-query.

Apparently the `_` in `account_reco_models_fees_%%` was evaluated as a wild-card, making the condition a substring-matching rather than direct prefix-matching. In this PR, I have modified the condition to escape the '_' wildcards.

The benchmark done below was on a database that has around **10^7** `ir.model.data` records and 1K `account.reconciliation.model` records. I have split the benchmark into two cases, a case where the buffer-pool of
postgres warmed-up and a case where it is not.

After Worst case -> https://explain.dalibo.com/plan/975geg1f1h109d5c
Before Worst case -> https://explain.dalibo.com/plan/0ce9bf3g0ad8f98b

After Best Case -> https://explain.dalibo.com/plan/1a77459dadb0gfc4

Definition of ir_model_data_name_idx2  -> CREATE INDEX ir_model_data_name_idx2 ON public.ir_model_data USING gist (name gist_trgm_ops)

Definition of ir_model_data_module_name_uniq_index -> CREATE UNIQUE INDEX ir_model_data_module_name_uniq_index ON public.ir_model_data USING btree (module, name)


| PostgreSQL Buffer Pool Status | Before | After |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Not warmed up (Cold) | 11s | 130ms |
| Warmed up (Hot) | 0.022ms | 0.097ms |

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install the `l10n_fr_account_loans` module and switch to a `FR Company`.
- Navigate to Accounting > Accounting > Assets & Liabilities > Loans.
- Create a new loan record.
- Click `Add a line`, set a `Date`, and `save` the record.
- Click `Add a line` again.

**Error:**
`TypeError: '>' not supported between instances of 'datetime.date' and 'bool'`

**Root Cause:**
At [1], when adding a line after the record has already been saved with 
at least one existing line, the existing line has a valid `datetime.date` 
value for `l.date`, while the newly created unsaved line still has `line.date` 
set to `False`. This results in a comparison between a `datetime.date` object 
and a boolean value, causing an error.

**Fix:**
This commit prevents the errors when adding multiple lines after saving the 
record by applying a fix similar to [2].

[1]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/54eef93f295eaebd98d24730d108b1203ca7b35a/l10n_fr_account_loans/models/account_loan_line.py#L21

[2]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/54eef93f295eaebd98d24730d108b1203ca7b35a/account_loans/models/account_loan_line.py#L61-L63

opw-6244973

## [FIX] web_gantt,planning: apply hasGroup before compute params

Before this commit, some actions like drag and drop gantt pills are
blocked for planning manager instead of being allowed only for them. The
reason is because the compute params is something made before checking
if the user is a planning manager and so the system will consider the
user is not a planning manager. The compute params is something made
before because the methods are executed inside 2 distincts onWillStart
hook and so OWL framework cannot know one hook depends on the other one.

This commit creates a method `onWillStart` in the main gantt controller
to be able to override it and be able to wait a rpc before processing
the compute params.

## [FIX] planning_field_service_sale_timesheet: don't count unscheduled intervention

This commit filters the interventions counted to display the field
service stat button in the form view of Sale Order. Now the intervention
unscheduled will no longer be counted and also the one linked to
plannable SOL.

## [FIX] planning_field_service: send email to customer when intervention published

Before this commit, the template "Field Service Scheduled" was unsused.

This commit uses that template to send an email to the customer once the
intervention is scheduled.

## [FIX] planning_field_service: send report when intervention completed and signed

Before this commit, the customer signs the intervention completed and
does not received any email with the intervention report. He has to
create an account in the DB as portal user to be able to see his
intervention or ask to contact person to send him the report by mail.

This commit will automatically send the intervention report by mail to
the customer once the intervention is completed and signed by the
customer.

## [FIX] planning_field_service: fix label and record_name in email sent for Field service

Before this commit, the button sent to the customer to see the
intervention is `View Planning Slot` and the record name used inside the
same email is the display name which is not useful for the customer.

This commit changes the label of the button displayed to see `View
Report` and change the record_name to show `Field Service -
<intervention date>` as shown in the portal view.

## [FIX] planning_field_service: no login required to access to intervention

Before this commit, the customer cannot access to the intervention
without begin log in even if he has the access token.

This commit changes the route access to let the user access to the
intervention completed and he can also sign it.

## [FIX] planning: hide duplicated name field in kanban displayed in gantt

This commit hides the duplicated name field displayed in the popover of
the gantt view in the planning.slot model.

## [FIX] planning_field_service: rename module name

This commit renames the module to call it `Field Service` instead of
`Planning - Field Service`.

## [FIX] worksheet: only show property warning message in mobile

## [FIX] planning: define employee_public_ids field in planning.slot

Before this commit, when a planning user goes to a shift he will see
Assign to me button on a shift assigned to another human resource which
is normally not allowed. The reason because the button is visible is
because `employee_ids` field is always empty for users who are not HR
user.

This commit adds `employee_public_ids` field which is also a computed
field non stored to get the employee for the user who is not a HR user.

## [FIX] planning_field_service: always compute break_time

This commit removes the default value on break_time field to always
trigger the compute of that field, the reason is because by default the
allocated_hours computed when we create a shift, will not always cover
the whole duration of the shift, the allocated hours of the shift is
computed based on the working schedule of the shift and so the
break_time field has to be computed afterwards to make sure the break
time is correctly set instead of having 0 by default when we create a
shift.

task-6060493

**Issue**
The scrap location provided by the user may be overridden while confirming a scrap move

**Steps to reproduce**
- In settings, enable the tracking of location in the warehouse
- Have two location of type 'Inventory loss'
- Create a scrap move and change the scrap location
- confirm the move
-> The scrapped move will be created using the scrap location already present before the user changes it

**Cause**
The regression has been introduce by this refactoring commit: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/1c7d80a10b5d7db1c4163166bf52b3f3c77044ba

While confirming the scrap move:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f68473898b97db55a1ef5bee1d4f7865fb6b6d8a/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L2726
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f68473898b97db55a1ef5bee1d4f7865fb6b6d8a/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L2731
It needs to access the `stock.move` record:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f68473898b97db55a1ef5bee1d4f7865fb6b6d8a/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L2133
Since this is the first access, it triggers the compute method of `location_dest_id`:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f68473898b97db55a1ef5bee1d4f7865fb6b6d8a/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L227-L228
Which sets it to the company's scrap location, regardless of the value provided by the user:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f68473898b97db55a1ef5bee1d4f7865fb6b6d8a/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L237-L238
This value is compute here:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f68473898b97db55a1ef5bee1d4f7865fb6b6d8a/addons/stock/models/res_company.py#L62-L65
This value is computed by taking the first scrap location found for this company

opw-6125152

When a receipt dest location or delivery source location get archived, the corresponding move may not be taken into account when computing the total_value / avg_cost at date.

OPW-6099192

---

### Test result without fix

```
2026-04-23 06:30:34,016 10516 INFO oes_test_19 odoo.addons.stock_account.tests.test_stockvaluation: Starting TestStockValuation.test_archived_location_valuation ... 
2026-04-23 06:30:34,255 10516 INFO oes_test_19 odoo.addons.stock_account.tests.test_stockvaluation: ====================================================================== 
2026-04-23 06:30:34,255 10516 ERROR oes_test_19 odoo.addons.stock_account.tests.test_stockvaluation: FAIL: TestStockValuation.test_archived_location_valuation
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/odoo/Odoo/src/19.0/odoo/addons/stock_account/tests/test_stockvaluation.py", line 3326, in test_archived_location_valuation
    self.assertEqual(self.product_avco.with_context(to_date=date_1).avg_cost, 10)
AssertionError: 20.0 != 10
 ```

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263354
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#260922

Before this commit, if the `_l10n_mx_edi_cfdi_invoice_append_addendas` method was executed more than once on the same invoice, the resulting CFDI would contain multiple `<cfdi:Addenda>` nodes.

This occurred because the method manually injects the new Addenda string at the end of the XML without checking if one was already present from a previous execution.

According to the SAT's Anexo 20 and the CFDI 4.0 XSD, the Addenda must be a single node and the last element of the Comprobante. Duplicating root-level nodes like `cfdi:Addenda` is a bad XML formation practice that can cause rejection by the recipient's automated systems.

This fix ensures the CFDI structure remains valid by:
1. Searching for an existing `{*}Addenda` node in the CFDI string.
2. Removing the old node before reconstructing the XML.
3. Preventing the string replacement logic from stacking multiple Addenda blocks.

This ensures that the CFDI remains clean and compliant with the official standard even if the process is triggered multiple times.

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#109760

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Create a flexible 32h/week calendar (8h/day, 4 days)
- Assign it to an employee with the Default Ruleset
- Create attendances: 8h on Monday, Tuesday, Friday, and Saturday (32h total, matching the weekly budget)
- Select the list view and go to the month of the attendances
- Employee shows 16:00 Worked Extra Hours (8h on Fri + 8h on Sat)

**Cause:**
`resource.calendar._attendance_intervals_batch` generates work intervals for flexible calendars by front loading the weekly hour budget onto the first days of the week (Mon 8h, Tue 8h, Wed 8h, Thu 8h for a 32h calendar), But days beyond the budget (Fri, Sat, Sun) get zero hours.

The two overtime rule paths relies on these synthetic intervals:

1) The quantity rule: `_get_daterange_overtime_undertime_intervals_for_quantity_rule()` computed `expected_duration` by intersecting the synthetic schedule with each day. For Fri/Sat the intersection was empty (expected = 0) -> all worked hours counted as overtime.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b31fd6816521ff43fb3a9ec37e79e9a9d628d357/addons/hr_attendance/models/hr_attendance_overtime_rule.py#L302-L304

**update** solved by: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/265120/changes/94d4bfffa053cd78ce07ff07ab14b53e8d931053

2) The timing rule: `_get_rules_intervals_by_timing_type()` derived "work_days" from the synthetic schedule and inverted them to get "non_work_days". (Fri, Sat, Sun) were classified as non-working days, therefore, any attendance on those days triggered full overtime.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b31fd6816521ff43fb3a9ec37e79e9a9d628d357/addons/hr_attendance/models/hr_attendance_overtime_rule.py#L421-L433

**Solution:**
For flexible calendars in the overtime rule consumer:
- Quantity rules: read expected hours directly from the calendar's `hours_per_day` / `hours_per_week` instead of the synthetic schedule intervals, subtracting any leaves in the period
- Timing rules: treat the entire attendance date range (minus leaves) as potential work days, so that `non_work_days` is empty for flexible employees (they can work any day of the week)

opw-6067063

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263840

# How to reproduce
- Go to the Form view of a model to which you can Add Properties
(e.g. Project > Tasks)
- Click on the gear icon > Add Properties
- Create a property field with :
	- Name : X
	- Field Type : Decimal
- Create two records for that model and set the value of the property to 1 & 2
- Go back and Add a custom filter with ('Properties.X', '=', 1)

# The problem
We see both records even tho we should only see one

# Cause of the issue
When doing the search, we transform the domain into the where clause of a
query. This transformation is done with the `condition_to_sql()`
function of the concerned field (`fields_properties` in our case):
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ba9e18688cc9c6e0d4da5ab60acf08d4c49b99d7/odoo/orm/fields_properties.py#L589

In this function, we manipulate a bit the condition depending on the value,
notably if the value is/contains True. To check it does, we do this :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ba9e18688cc9c6e0d4da5ab60acf08d4c49b99d7/odoo/orm/fields_properties.py#L601

The issue is that in python, True in [1] and evaluates to True
because bool is a subset of int. This changes the condition and replaces it in
our case with ('Properties.X', '!=', 'False'), which is obviously not what
was initially asked for.

opw-6224811

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#266231
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265835

### 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#266269
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#257827

Currently an error occurs when user quick creates a picking type and tries to create a  receipt with it.

**Steps to replicate:**
- Install stock.
- Go to Inventory > Receipts and create a new receipt > Save it.
- Clear the Operation Type field, type `test` and quick create it.
- Save and the error will occur.

**Error:**
```
UndefinedFunction: operator does not exist: integer = boolean
LINE 1: SELECT number_next FROM ir_sequence WHERE id=false FOR UPDAT...
```

**Cause:**
- As the user quick created the picking type, the `sequence_code` field was not set and it is a required field [1], when we try to get `next_number` to create the name for the current stock picking this error occurs.

- In the versions before `saas-19.1` trying to quick create picking type will lead to a `Not-Null Violation` as `sequence_code` is a required field and then stock picking type form view will open up.

- This error occurs only after `saas-19.1` and above versions because this [PR] made the `sequence_code` field into a related field so its required constraint was removed and hence quick create creates a new picking type.

**Solution:**
- Disabled quick create for stock picking type in multiple views.

[1]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/fe0550ad23ff9128099e7e4994938879a971dcc8/addons/stock/views/stock_picking_type_views.xml#L93

[PR]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/190305/changes#diff-79cbc763115661182c02285c07320098510f5686700359ddee67443b4893dc30L32-R32

sentry-7203804886
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

### Issue:
When a Sale Order is delivered but later reimbursed (e.g., via a credit note without a return), it is still considered as to invoice
As a result, it continues to impact the partner’s credit limit

### Cause:
Sale Orders remain included in the `credit_to_invoice` computation even when invoicing is manually considered finished
There was no way to exclude such orders from the credit limit calculation

### Fix:
Use the `invoicing_closed` field to mark Sale Orders as fully processed
When set, the order is excluded from the credit limit computation

### Steps to reproduce:
- Install `sale_management`
- In Settings, enable Sales Credit Limit (default: 3000)
- Create, confirm, and deliver a Sale Order for a new customer (any product, price: 2000)
- Duplicate the Sale Order → a credit warning is displayed
- Go back to the original Sale Order and use Close Invoicing from the gear menu
- Return to the duplicated Sale Order
The warning disappears as the closed order is no longer included in the credit computation

### Note:
For a complete business scenario, refer to the steps described in the related ticket

opw-6013369

Version:
---------
- 19.0+

Steps to reproduce:
--------------------

1.Install modules `sale_management`, `purchase`, and `mrp`.
2. Go to Settings and enable the MTO (Replenish on Order) route.
3. Create a product with:

       i. Configure a Vendor under the Purchase tab.
      ii. Set the route to MTO.
     iii. Create a Bill of Materials for the product.
5. Create a Sale Order with the configured product and confirm it.
6. Open the generated Manufacturing Order.
7. Duplicate the Manufacturing Order.

Issue:
------

* The duplicated Manufacturing Order shows a smart button
linked with the Sale Order, which is incorrect.

Root Cause:
------------
 This issue is coming form this [Commit](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/2713876dbc70d3984e584a9037a2206dcda4e84a#diff-2b9de2e50ff5e1dc0362b825bac2b07623770fb3275b3257ef972f255f3ccb8b) 

* During Sale Order confirmation, the flow
`action_confirm` → `_action_confirm` → `_action_launch_stock_rule`
→ `run` → `_run_pull` → `_action_confirm` calls
`_prepare_procurement_values`.
which gather all procurement values.
In sale_stock, the super call adds `sale_line_id` to the
generated Manufacturing Order when using MTO:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0352c5e8543b75083cf555c3d5b4f164f949b465/addons/sale_stock/models/stock.py#L138-L140

* So, when the Sale Order is confirmed, the generated
Manufacturing Order contains sale_line_id, and when this
Manufacturing Order is duplicated, the sale_line_id is also
copied.

* In sale_mrp, the smart button uses sale_line_id to compute
the linked Sale Order count:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0352c5e8543b75083cf555c3d5b4f164f949b465/addons/sale_mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L19

Solution:
-----------
* Prevent copying of sale_line_id when duplicating a
Manufacturing Order, ensuring duplicated records are not
linked to any Sale Order.

---

opw-6113149


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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#259128

Sending the final invoice of a sale order to ZATCA crashed with `ValueError: Expected singleton: account.move(a, b)` when the sale order had multiple down-payment references.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Configure a SA company and setup ZATCA
2. Create a sale order and confirm it
3. Deliver the product line.
3. From the sale order, create a down-payment invoice (fixed amount, e.g. 115) and post it (DP1).
4. On DP1, click "Credit Note" and choose "Full refund and new draft invoice"; validate. DP1 becomes `reversed` and a new draft down-payment DP2 is created. Post DP2.
5. From the sale order, create the final regular invoice and post it.
6. Send the final invoice to ZATCA (or generate its XML) -> `ValueError: Expected singleton: account.move(a, b)`.

Root cause: _l10n_sa_get_line_prepayment_vals looks up the related down-payment move through the down-payment sale order line shared with the product line. The filter matched any out_invoice with _is_downpayment() == True, so the reversed DP1 and the active DP2 both ended up in the recordset, and reading .name raised the singleton error.

Prefer non-reversed down-payment moves when available, but fall back to reversed ones if no alternative exists (e.g.
when generating a credit note of the final invoice after the original down-payment was itself reversed).

opw-6116265

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264435
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#259384

**Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:**
This PR fixes an "Invalid Operation" UserError during the Bill Matching process. The error occurs when Odoo attempts to call the line addition method on a Posted Vendor Bill, even when there are no new residual lines to add. This triggers a write attempt on read-only fields (such as invoice_line_ids) of a validated account move, which is prohibited by Odoo’s ORM.

Furthermore, this addresses a functional inconsistency: Odoo allows users to select "Posted" bills in the matching view, but the underlying code is not prepared to handle a "zero residual" scenario on a validated move. If Odoo intends to prevent matching on posted bills, they should be filtered out from the view; since they are available to select, the system must be able to process them when no further modifications to the accounting entries are required.

**Current behavior before PR:**
When performing a match between a posted Vendor Bill and Purchase Order lines where the "residual" (lines left to add) is zero:

The system executes _add_purchase_order_lines() regardless of whether the recordset of lines is empty.
Odoo's ORM detects an update attempt on a posted record.
A UserError is raised: "You cannot modify the following readonly fields on a posted move: invoice_line_ids".
This blocks the user from completing the matching process even if the lines are already technically accounted for.

**Desired behavior after PR is merged:**
The system will check if residual_purchase_order_lines contains any records before attempting to update the bill.
If there are no lines to add, the method call is skipped.
The matching process completes successfully without attempting an illegal write on a posted move.

**Steps to Reproduce**
1) Create a Purchase Order (PO): Add a product (e.g., "Acoustic Bloc Screens") and confirm the order.
2) Create a Vendor Bill manually: Do not use the "Create Bill" button from the PO. Instead, go to Accounting -> Vendors -> Bills and create a new bill for the same vendor and product.
3) Post the Bill: Set a bill date and click Confirm to move it to the "Posted" state.
4) Open Bill Matching: Go back to the Purchase Order and click the Bill Matching button (or navigate to the matching view).
5) Select Lines: Select the PO line and the corresponding Bill line (which are already equal in quantity/price).
6) Trigger the Match: Click on the Match button.

Observe Error: An "Invalid Operation" popup appears, preventing the link because Odoo tries to "add" zero lines to a posted invoice.


**Video:**
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12aeZIx1JRRSKA9TaWfXy0TeSOgMUMQcg/view
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#241171

When calling on a empty recordset action_mark_as_done, it creates a traceback.

**Observation**

When calling action_mark_as_done, the method first loops over each workorder to perform various safety checks, and then calls button_finish to close all workorders:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/24008b550c5e7cf04cde2028c40f8a32d5b0e504/mrp_workorder/models/mrp_workorder.py#L881-L888 
Inside button_finish, it retrieves all open workorders and marks them as done:
 - Retrieve open workorders: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/36a1c6300f52f408b6af3f769e26686e07810e5a/addons/mrp/models/mrp_workorder.py#L659 
 - mark them as done:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/36a1c6300f52f408b6af3f769e26686e07810e5a/addons/mrp/models/mrp_workorder.py#L675-L678

Returning to action_mark_as_done, it attempts to set the state to 'done' on the last workorder outside of the loop, referencing the loop variable:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/24008b550c5e7cf04cde2028c40f8a32d5b0e504/mrp_workorder/models/mrp_workorder.py#L894 

-> If self is empty, the loop never executes. This leaves the loop variable empty, which ultimately triggers a traceback.

opw-6239910

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118403

Issue:
Sending payments to SAT before its full amount is reconciled allow sending the same invoice payment several times to CFDI.

Steps to reproduce:
- In a Mexican company
- Create an invoice A of $40 to Inmobiliaria CVA
- Confirm and send to CFDI
- Go to bank, create a new Bank transaction of $80
- reconcile with Invoice A
- Go to invoice A => click on button "Update payments" (it doesn't appear in previous versions)
- Then sheet CFDI and Download There is the first XML sent to CFDI with payment for invoice A
- Create an invoice B of $40 to Inmobilira CVA
- Confirm and send to CFDI
- reconcile the transaction with Invoice B
- Go to invoice B
- Click on button "Update payments"
- Then sheet CFDI and Download There is the second XML sent to CFDI with payment for invoices A and B

Invoice A payment was sent twice to CFDI

Expected behavior:
- The "Update payment" button should appear only once the invoice payment is fully reconciled.

Current behavior:
- The update payment button appear once the invoice is reconciled with a payment.

The method `_l10n_mx_edi_cfdi_invoice_get_payments_diff` is called twice, once to check whether it's needed to display the "Update button" and once when you try to update the payment (called only after clicking on said button).

opw-5432421

### Issue before this commit:
Importing a simplified Italian electronic invoice or credit note (e.g., TD08) fails with a float division by 0 traceback if a document line consists entirely of taxes (where the total line amount equals the tax amount).

### Steps to reproduce the issue:
1. Download Accounting and l10n_it
2. Switch to IT company
3. Go to Vendors > Refunds
4. Try to import the xml from the ticket

### Cause of the issue:
The XML parser attempts to dynamically calculate the tax percentage using the formula tax_amount / (amount - tax_amount). When a line is purely a tax adjustment, the taxable base (amount - tax_amount) evaluates to exactly zero, triggering the critical division by zero crash.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/e3b0ca11d99b2ef819cdad68b169112cd73668b6/addons/l10n_it_edi/models/account_move.py#L1863-L1867

### Reason to introduce the fix:
To ensure Odoo successfully imports valid, tax-only EDI documents already accepted by the Agenzia delle Entrate.

Ticket [link](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project.task/6217373)
opw-6217373

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#266930
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#266374

When calling on a empty recordset action_mark_as_done, it creates a traceback.

**Observation**

When calling action_mark_as_done, the method first loops over each workorder to perform various safety checks, and then calls button_finish to close all workorders:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/24008b550c5e7cf04cde2028c40f8a32d5b0e504/mrp_workorder/models/mrp_workorder.py#L881-L888 
Inside button_finish, it retrieves all open workorders and marks them as done:
 - Retrieve open workorders: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/36a1c6300f52f408b6af3f769e26686e07810e5a/addons/mrp/models/mrp_workorder.py#L659 
 - mark them as done:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/36a1c6300f52f408b6af3f769e26686e07810e5a/addons/mrp/models/mrp_workorder.py#L675-L678

Returning to action_mark_as_done, it attempts to set the state to 'done' on the last workorder outside of the loop, referencing the loop variable:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/24008b550c5e7cf04cde2028c40f8a32d5b0e504/mrp_workorder/models/mrp_workorder.py#L894 

-> If self is empty, the loop never executes. This leaves the loop variable empty, which ultimately triggers a traceback.

opw-6239910

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118403

**Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:**
This PR fixes an "Invalid Operation" UserError during the Bill Matching process. The error occurs when Odoo attempts to call the line addition method on a Posted Vendor Bill, even when there are no new residual lines to add. This triggers a write attempt on read-only fields (such as invoice_line_ids) of a validated account move, which is prohibited by Odoo’s ORM.

Furthermore, this addresses a functional inconsistency: Odoo allows users to select "Posted" bills in the matching view, but the underlying code is not prepared to handle a "zero residual" scenario on a validated move. If Odoo intends to prevent matching on posted bills, they should be filtered out from the view; since they are available to select, the system must be able to process them when no further modifications to the accounting entries are required.

**Current behavior before PR:**
When performing a match between a posted Vendor Bill and Purchase Order lines where the "residual" (lines left to add) is zero:

The system executes _add_purchase_order_lines() regardless of whether the recordset of lines is empty.
Odoo's ORM detects an update attempt on a posted record.
A UserError is raised: "You cannot modify the following readonly fields on a posted move: invoice_line_ids".
This blocks the user from completing the matching process even if the lines are already technically accounted for.

**Desired behavior after PR is merged:**
The system will check if residual_purchase_order_lines contains any records before attempting to update the bill.
If there are no lines to add, the method call is skipped.
The matching process completes successfully without attempting an illegal write on a posted move.

**Steps to Reproduce**
1) Create a Purchase Order (PO): Add a product (e.g., "Acoustic Bloc Screens") and confirm the order.
2) Create a Vendor Bill manually: Do not use the "Create Bill" button from the PO. Instead, go to Accounting -> Vendors -> Bills and create a new bill for the same vendor and product.
3) Post the Bill: Set a bill date and click Confirm to move it to the "Posted" state.
4) Open Bill Matching: Go back to the Purchase Order and click the Bill Matching button (or navigate to the matching view).
5) Select Lines: Select the PO line and the corresponding Bill line (which are already equal in quantity/price).
6) Trigger the Match: Click on the Match button.

Observe Error: An "Invalid Operation" popup appears, preventing the link because Odoo tries to "add" zero lines to a posted invoice.


**Video:**
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12aeZIx1JRRSKA9TaWfXy0TeSOgMUMQcg/view
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#241171

Problem:
When selecting text containing `o_inline_code` and applying formatting such as bold, italic, or underline, the formatting cannot be removed.

Cause:
When applying formatting, nodes matching
`is_formattable_node_predicates` are ignored. However, when checking
whether the selection is already formatted, those nodes are not ignored,
so the selection is erroneously considered to be only partially
formatted.

Solution:
Take `is_formattable_node_predicates` into account when checking whether a selection is formatted.

Steps to reproduce:
- Go to To-Do → Create New.
- Type some text and add inline code on the same line.
- Select all content using Ctrl + A.
- Apply formatting such as bold, italic, or underline using keyboard shortcuts (Ctrl + B / Ctrl + I / Ctrl + U).
- Press the same shortcut again to remove the formatting.
- Observe that the formatting is not removed.

task-6229228

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265183

### Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:
Prevent Out of Memory (OOM) crashes and drastically improve execution speed when generating the Swedish SIE4 verification export for massive datasets.

### Current behavior before PR:
When exporting a large volume of journal entries (e.g., 190,000+ account moves), the `_export_l10n_se_sie4_verification` method relies on iterating through heavy ORM recordsets and accessing relational child fields (move.line_ids) inside a loop. This triggers a severe N+1 query problem, maxing out server RAM and causing an OOM crash.

### Desired behavior after PR is merged:
The method now utilizes a hybrid data extraction approach:
- The ORM is used strictly to safely evaluate domains (multi-company rules, dates, states) and fetch a lightweight list of valid move_ids.
- A single SQL query with JOIN statements fetches all parent moves, child lines, and account codes in exactly one database query.
- itertools.groupby chunks the flat, lightweight dictionary results back into their respective journal entries.
The export now handles massive datasets in seconds with minimal memory overhead, while remaining perfectly secure.

### Benchmark:

For Memory:
| # Input Data | Before PR | After PR |
| -------- | -------- | -------- |
| ~190,000 moves | MemoryError | 407MB|
| ~200,000 moves | 1.8GB | 174.8 MB|

For Speed:
| # Input Data | Before PR | After PR |
| -------- | -------- | -------- |
| ~190,000 moves | MemoryError | 5.10s |
| ~200,000 moves | 1m29s| 5.3s|

### Reference:
opw-6067999

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117577
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#113227

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

### 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#118212
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117068

**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

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Create user with role: User. Sales: Administrator, Accounting: Administrator and Documents: System Administrator.
2. Create a SO, create invoice, confirm, and send.
3. Now go back to the SO, and try to link the INV document to the chatter.

**Cause:**
When linking an existing document to the composer, the underlying attachment is copied. If the source attachment is bound to a specific field (e.g., `res_field = 'invoice_pdf_report_file'`), the `copy()` operation duplicates this field reference. Odoo's native security checks then attempt to verify access to that specific field on the target model (`mail.compose.message`). Because the composer does not have this field, the check fails and throws an AccessError, even if the user has full rights to the source document.

**Solution:**
Explicitly set `"res_field": False` during the copy operation. This strips the original field binding, cleanly converting the file into a standard, generic chatter attachment for the composer without bypassing the standard security framework.

opw-5916364

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117347
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#107723

**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

Before this commit, if the `_l10n_mx_edi_cfdi_invoice_append_addendas` method was executed more than once on the same invoice, the resulting CFDI would contain multiple `<cfdi:Addenda>` nodes.

This occurred because the method manually injects the new Addenda string at the end of the XML without checking if one was already present from a previous execution.

According to the SAT's Anexo 20 and the CFDI 4.0 XSD, the Addenda must be a single node and the last element of the Comprobante. Duplicating root-level nodes like `cfdi:Addenda` is a bad XML formation practice that can cause rejection by the recipient's automated systems.

This fix ensures the CFDI structure remains valid by:
1. Searching for an existing `{*}Addenda` node in the CFDI string.
2. Removing the old node before reconstructing the XML.
3. Preventing the string replacement logic from stacking multiple Addenda blocks.

This ensures that the CFDI remains clean and compliant with the official standard even if the process is triggered multiple times.

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#109760

When a user expands the report line of a no-depreciation asset
in the depreciation schedule report, a traceback is raised.

Steps to reproduce the error:
- Install ``account_asset`` module with demo data
- Go to Accounting > Accounting > Assets > Create a new asset >
  Set Depreciation Model: No depreciation and Fixed Asset Account > Confirm
- Go to Accounting > Review > Depreciation Schedule
- Select the current fiscal year in filters
- Expand the asset report line

Traceback:
```py
UnboundLocalError
cannot access local variable 'period_suffix' where it is not associated with a value
```

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/5edd033ce05d65a79bc5b21ad2d1559a1af78056/account_asset/models/account_assets_report.py#L388-L390
Here, ``period_suffix`` is only assigned when the asset method is ``linear`` or ``degressive``,
For assets using the ``no_depreciation`` method, the variable remains undefined,
leading to the traceback when returning the depreciation rate string.

sentry-7504906018

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118485

Previously, the file containing the Knowledge print assets was lazy-loaded when the user triggered a print action through the UI. However, printing can also be initiated through other mechanisms (keyboard shortcuts, contextual menu, etc.), which prevented us from consistently detecting when to load the assets. In those cases, the assets were not loaded and the article appeared blank (see: odoo/enterprise#70243).

To ensure the assets are always loaded regardless of how printing is triggered, we moved them to the common print bundle and adopted the standard asset-loading approach. This change also simplifies the codebase by removing JavaScript workarounds previously used to load the assets dynamically.

However, some CSS rules in the Knowledge print stylesheet target global elements such as the web client container. Since the stylesheet is now included in a global asset bundle and always loaded, these rules apply to all modules and may cause rendering issues when printing views outside of Knowledge.

To prevent such side effects, the CSS rules in `knowledge_print.scss` will be updated to use more specific selectors. The rules will be scoped so they only apply when the container includes the Knowledge view (using the `:has`).

This PR also refactors the stylesheet by removing outdated rules that no longer match any elements. Several of these rules predate the major UI refactoring introduced in Odoo 16.

Task-5999878

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118448
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#109379

*= pos_restaurant_preparation_display, pos_enterprise

Steps to Reproduce
==================
- Create an order with Product A ×2 and Product B ×2
- Send the order to the preparation display
- Split the order and pay for one unit of each product
- On the remaining order, add another product
- Send the order to the preparation display 
- The preparation display incorrectly cancels previously sent products

Fix
===
- Prevent cancellation of existing preparation order lines
- Avoid duplication of preparation lines when split orders are sent to the kitchen

Covered Scenario
================
1. Send an order with Coca-Cola ×2, Minute Maid ×2, Water ×1 to the kitchen.
2. Split 1 qty of each product into a new order, increase split quantities, and send it.
3. Increase quantities on the original order and send it again.

Expected Behavior
=================
- Initial preparation order remains unchanged (no line cancellations)
- Split order creates a new preparation card with only unsend split quantities
- Original order creates a new preparation card with only newly added quantities
- No preparation line incorrectly aggregates quantities across orders

Task-5355899

Related Comm. PR: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/244195

### Steps to Reproduce:

1) Create a database on v17.4 or earlier with purchase_requisition_stock
   installed.
2) Archive the incoming operation type of root company (i.e. base.main_company).
3) Upgrade to v18.

### Issue:

Upgrade crashes with RedirectWarning, aborting the process entirely.

```python3
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/18.0/odoo/service/server.py", line 1366, in preload_registries
    registry = Registry.new(dbname, update_module=update_module)
  File "<decorator-gen-13>", line 2, in new
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/18.0/odoo/tools/func.py", line 97, in locked
    return func(inst, *args, **kwargs)
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/18.0/odoo/modules/registry.py", line 129, in new
    odoo.modules.load_modules(registry, force_demo, status, update_module)
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/18.0/odoo/modules/loading.py", line 485, in load_modules
    processed_modules += load_marked_modules(env, graph,
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/18.0/odoo/modules/loading.py", line 365, in load_marked_modules
    loaded, processed = load_module_graph(
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/18.0/odoo/modules/loading.py", line 206, in load_module_graph
    registry.init_models(env.cr, model_names, {'module': package.name}, new_install)
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/18.0/odoo/modules/registry.py", line 605, in init_models
    model._auto_init()
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/18.0/odoo/models.py", line 3474, in _auto_init
    new = field.update_db(self, columns)
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/18.0/odoo/fields.py", line 3269, in update_db
    return super(Many2one, self).update_db(model, columns)
  File "/tmp/tmpy3l3l_un/migrations/base/0.0.0/pre-models-no-orm-table-change.py", line 170, in update_db
    return orig_update_db(self, model, columns)
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/18.0/odoo/fields.py", line 1098, in update_db
    self.update_db_notnull(model, column)
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/18.0/odoo/fields.py", line 1150, in update_db_notnull
    model._init_column(self.name)
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/18.0/odoo/models.py", line 3390, in _init_column
    value = field.default(self)
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/18.0/addons/purchase_requisition_stock/models/purchase_requisition.py", line 13, in _default_picking_type_id
    self.env['stock.warehouse']._warehouse_redirect_warning()
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/18.0/addons/stock/models/stock_warehouse.py", line 172, in _warehouse_redirect_warning
    raise RedirectWarning(msg, warehouse_action.id, _('Go to Warehouses'))
odoo.exceptions.RedirectWarning: ('Cree un almacén para la empresa Navieras Internacionales, S.A. (Navinter).', 464, 'Ir a los almacenes', None)
```

### Cause:

picking_type_id is required=True on purchase.requisition. In 18.0, warehouses are no longer auto-created for every company https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/6516ab61927a63e3f2d804cf1b5baa43a151ca19#diff-e018fe59e11c4e0078e9bc19879f9e98c731bb84c71766ef360ccc482c59d2d8R167 If the root company (base.main_company) had its incoming operation type archived and the upgrade, _default_picking_type_id returns nothing and falls through to _warehouse_redirect_warning, raising a RedirectWarning that aborts the upgrade entirely.

### Fix:

Add active_test=False to the search in _default_picking_type_id so archived picking types are also matched, allowing the upgrade to complete successfully.

opw-6245256
upg-4310650
tbg-2758

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

Current behavior before PR:

Desired behavior after PR is merged:




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

In a carousel snippet all carousel items keep a consistent height to prevent layout jitter when sliding. The height synchronization was broken in snippets like `s_image_gallery` or `s_carousel` when:
- An image was replaced with one of a different aspect ratio.
- Item dimensions were modified via border overlays (padding changes).

This commit introduces a `ResizeObserver` to monitor the carousel and triggers a height synchronization whenever an element's size changes.

Steps to reproduce (Media Change):
1. In the website builder, add the `s_image_gallery` snippet.
2. Replace one of its images with another which is significantly tall.
3. Navigate through the carousel and observe height changes causing a jitter effect.

Steps to reproduce (Border Overlay):
1. In the website builder, add the `s_carousel` snippet.
2. Drag the lower border overlay so that the height of an image increases.
3. Navigate through the carousel and observe height changes causing a jitter effect.

Task: [5135520](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project/974/tasks/5135520)

**Steps to reproduce:**
* Install Peru - Accounting Reports (l10n_pe_reports).
* Create a vendor bill with Document Type 50 (Declaración Aduanera de Mercancías - DAM) and a document number in the standard pediment format (e.g. C235202610-38047).
* Go to Accounting > Reporting > Purchase Electronic Record (RCE 8.4).
* Export the TXT file and open it.

**Observed behavior:**
* Field 8 contains the full first numeric block of the document name including the year and sequence digits (e.g. 235202610) instead of only the 3-digit customs dependency code.
* SUNAT/SIRE rejects the file immediately because 235202610 does not exist in Table 4 (RS 040-2022), which only defines 3-digit codes.

**Cause:**
* `_get_serie_folio()` splits the document name by taking everything before the last digit group as the serie. For a name like C235202610-38047 this produces serie = "C235202610", and the existing `serie[1:]` logic strips only the leading letter, leaving "235202610" in field 8 instead of the 3-digit customs dependency code "235".
* The same incorrect value was also written to field 28 (aduana_code).
* ref : https://www.sunat.gob.pe/legislacion/superin/2022/anexo-040-2022.pdf

**Fix:**
* For document types 50 and 52, extract the first numeric group from the document name using `re.search(r'\d+', move_name)` and slice the first 3 characters to obtain the customs dependency code as defined in SUNAT Table 4 (always a 3-digit value).
* Apply the same logic to field 28 (aduana_code) for consistency.

opw-6157662