France’s electronic invoicing reform : The tax administration  needs structured fiscal data for the transactions , either via E-invoicing for the nationals B2B or E-reporting for the international B2B and the B2C.

This creates two complementary obligations:

- **E-invoicing** for domestic B2B transactions, where the invoice itself is exchanged through the PA/Peppol flow.
- **E-reporting** for transactions outside that domestic B2B scope, mainly B2C and international B2B, where transaction and payment data must be reported to the tax administration through Flux 10 (period-based).

## Scope

Domestic B2B remains handled by the existing e-invoicing flow, because the invoice exchange already carries the required structured information.

Flux 10 is introduced for transactions that must be reported separately:

- B2C transactions, where there is no buyer-side e-invoice exchange.
- International B2B transactions, where the counterparty is outside the French domestic B2B mandate.
- Payment reporting when VAT exigibility depends on collection.

The reporting is period-based and keeps transaction reports separated from payment reports, because they answer different legal obligations and follow different timelines.

## Corrections and Lifecycle

Flux 10 supports both:

- **Initial reports**, for the first declaration of a period.
- **Rectificative reports**, when already reported data must be corrected or completed.

This distinction is needed so corrections remain traceable instead of silently mutating a report that may already have been transmitted.

## Security and Eligibility

This PR also enforces stronger safeguards before using PDP/PA services.

- **2FA is required** because PDP/PA actions expose regulated fiscal flows and should not be available from a simple password-only login. Email-based 2FA is available as a fallback when users have not configured an authenticator app.
- **KYC is introduced** because a company must be identified and validated before Odoo can transmit documents or reports on its behalf through the PDP/PA infrastructure.

Together, these changes make the French PDP/PA flow usable not only for invoice exchange, but also for the wider e-reporting obligations required by the French reform.


Task-4603708

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#239576

### Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses: 
**Issue:** A recent update to support `certificateFingerprint` introduced a regression for existing users authenticating with standard certificates (AKA `certificateSubject`). Because the matching logic strictly checked for the company NIP within the certificate subject, it failed for users using personal PESEL certificates to act on a company's behalf. 

**Previous PR:** https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/264851 

**Solution:** Expanded the string-matching heuristic in the XML signer to strip formatting characters from the NIP and explicitly checks for standard Polish qualified certificate prefixes (VATPL and PNOPL) to accurately get the identifier type.

### Current behavior before PR: 
When a user logs in via a personal PESEL certificate for a company context, the NIP check fails and miscategorizes the payload as a `certificateFingerprint`. KSeF rejects this mismatch, causing a 400 error for previously working setups.

### Desired behavior after PR is merged: 
The authentication flow distinguishes between `certificateSubject` and `certificateFingerprint` by checking for valid Polish prefixes or exact cleaned NIP matches. Existing customers are restored to working order natively, and new customers using manual fingerprints are still supported without requiring any database or UI changes.

opw-6251153

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#267060

Currently, an error occurs when the user receives a dropship order instead of delivering it directly to the customer. As a result, the sale order shows a negative delivered quantity.

## Steps to replicate:
- Install Sales, Inventory, and Purchase.
- Enable Dropshipping from Inventory settings.
- Create a test product with the Dropship route enabled and set a vendor for it in the Purchase tab.
- Create and confirm a quotation for a customer.
- Go to Purchase > `Deliver To:` and set it to `My Company: Receipts.`
- Confirm the Purchase Order and validate the receipt.
- Go back to the Sale Order.

## Observed Behavior:
The delivered quantity is -1, which is incorrect because the customer has not returned any products, nor has the user created a sale order line with a negative quantity (which would indicate a return).

## Root cause:
When computing the delivered quantity at [1], the function `_get_outgoing_incoming_moves` [2] is called to retrieve the incoming and outgoing stock moves associated with the sale order lines.

Inside this function, moves are filtered and categorized as incoming or outgoing. At [3], the condition is satisfied because the default value of `to_refund` is `True`, so the move is added to `incoming_move_ids`. Later, during the computation at [1], the code iterates through the incoming moves and subtracts their quantities from the delivered quantity.

Since the initial delivered quantity is 0, including such a move in `incoming_move_ids` causes the delivered quantity to become -1.


<h3> Why did this behavior not occur in lower versions?:</h3>

This issue was introduced by [commit], which added the functionality for users to return products that are not listed in the purchase order. As a result, their quantities appear as negative received quantities on the purchase order.

Before this change (in saas-18.2), the field `move.to_refund` had a default value of `False`. Because of this, the condition at [3] was not satisfied, and the move was not included in `incoming_move_ids`. Therefore, it was not subtracted when iterating through incoming moves, and the delivered quantity did not become negative.

Starting from 18.3, the default value of `to_refund` was changed to `True`. This causes the condition at [3] to be satisfied, the move to be included in `incoming_move_ids`, and its quantity to be subtracted during the computation, resulting in a delivered quantity of -1.

[1]-
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/1256875226436a854558a1334ffdc886fa4767a8/addons/sale_stock/models/sale_order_line.py#L193-L209 
[2]-
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/1256875226436a854558a1334ffdc886fa4767a8/addons/sale_stock/models/sale_order_line.py#L316-L353 
[3]-
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/1256875226436a854558a1334ffdc886fa4767a8/addons/sale_stock/models/sale_order_line.py#L346-L351

## Solution:
We can make the condition stricter by ensuring that only incoming moves that are actual returns are counted as negative in the quantity delivered on a sale order. 

Specifically, if an incoming move has no corresponding originating return move and the customer has not created a sale order line with a negative quantity (which could also indicate a return), it should not be considered when calculating the delivered quantity.

[commit]:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/209110/changes/c1c86182e4b28e929bf56e79f57f33aaa13e67f1

opw-5933594

**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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#115406

…lit for same-product lines

When doing an intercompany Sale->Purchase with multiple lines having the same products, the receipt picking would be incorrectly assigned:
- Enable Inter-Company Transactions on both companies (Create and validate)
- Create SO in company A to company B with 2 lines having the same product P, Confirm. => Delivery in company A, Purchase and Receipts in company will be created => The SO/PO/Delivery/Receipt will all have 2 lines
- Validate delivery => On the receipt, the 2 units of P are reserved on the 1st move, and the 2nd move is not reserved.


https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/b4816051-120e-4226-9228-fd552649d5ef


---

### Test result without fix:
```
2026-04-23 13:16:44,577 48027 INFO oes_test_18.0 odoo.addons.sale_purchase_stock_inter_company_rules.tests.test_inter_company_so_to_po: Starting TestInterCompanySaleToPurchaseWithStock.test_02_inter_company_multiple_lines_with_same_product ... 
2026-04-23 13:16:44,949 48027 INFO oes_test_18.0 odoo.addons.sale_purchase_stock_inter_company_rules.tests.test_inter_company_so_to_po: ====================================================================== 
2026-04-23 13:16:44,949 48027 ERROR oes_test_18.0 odoo.addons.sale_purchase_stock_inter_company_rules.tests.test_inter_company_so_to_po: FAIL: TestInterCompanySaleToPurchaseWithStock.test_02_inter_company_multiple_lines_with_same_product
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/odoo/Odoo/src/18.0/enterprise/sale_purchase_stock_inter_company_rules/tests/test_inter_company_so_to_po.py", line 109, in test_02_inter_company_multiple_lines_with_same_product
    self.assertRecordValues(purchase_from_a.picking_ids.move_ids, [
  File "/home/odoo/Odoo/src/18.0/odoo/odoo/tests/common.py", line 709, in assertRecordValues
    self.assertSequenceEqual(expected_reformatted, record_reformatted, seq_type=list)
AssertionError: Lists differ: [{'pr[18 chars]0, 'quantity': 1.0}, {'product_uom_qty': 1.0, 'quantity': 1.0}] != [{'pr[18 chars]0, 'quantity': 2.0}, {'product_uom_qty': 1.0, 'quantity': 0.0}]

First differing element 0:
{'product_uom_qty': 1.0, 'quantity': 1.0}
{'product_uom_qty': 1.0, 'quantity': 2.0}

- [{'product_uom_qty': 1.0, 'quantity': 1.0},
?                                       ^

+ [{'product_uom_qty': 1.0, 'quantity': 2.0},
?                                       ^

-  {'product_uom_qty': 1.0, 'quantity': 1.0}]
?                                       ^

+  {'product_uom_qty': 1.0, 'quantity': 0.0}]
?                                       ^

```

OPW-6145683

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118548
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#114873

Issue:
Cancelled journal entries were visible in the "Journal Items to Reconcile" view (action_move_line_posted_unreconciled) because the action domain had no filter to exclude them. This caused reconciliation failures, no reconciliation happened, and the cancelled record remained in the view.

This regression was introduced during a refactor to allow draft entries in the reconciliation view, where the posted-state condition was removed from the domain:

Enterprise commit: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/003cffabda7d91a6d10d58942ed972ca5e17366d

As a result, cancelled journal items also became visible, causing reconciliation attempts to fail while the records remained in the view.

Also, we are not allowed to reconcile cancelled move lines, and we already
have the validation for this [here](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blame/a236f67776616f6facdefb0117a6ffdde9b7c84c/addons/account/models/account_move_line.py#L2627)

Issue is reproducible on runbot. Here is the video reference: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ojIDxHn5Yst8gVFy8JyhwtJoDSSSJsmK/view?usp=sharing

- OPW: 6247870

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118773