### 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

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#108355

**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