When the stock valuation closing report computes FIFO valuation at a
historical date, it recomputes each move's value via
`move._get_value(at_date)`. For moves without a purchase link (inventory
adjustments, initial inventory), the value falls through to
`_get_value_from_std_price()` which uses the current `standard_price`.

For FIFO products, `standard_price` is recalculated on every stock
operation (`total_value / qty_available`), so the historical valuation
drifts as new operations are processed.

This is the same root cause as https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/d2934b59e49ef943d957a80e53cca835a59fabef which fixed it for AVCO's
`_run_average_batch` by passing `forced_std_price`. This commit fixes
the FIFO path by using `move.value / move._get_valued_qty()` (the unit
price stored at validation time) as the fallback in
`_get_value_from_std_price` when `at_date` is set and no std_price was
explicitly forced.

Steps to reproduce (in `odoo-bin shell`, using freezegun's `freeze_time`
to backdate two operations to different dates, e.g. date1 = two days ago
and date2 = yesterday):

1. Create a FIFO periodic product with `standard_price = 10`
2. With `freeze_time(date1)`: apply an inventory adjustment of 10 units
3. With `freeze_time(date2)`: receive 10 units at unit cost 20
   > standard_price shifts to 15
4. Check `product.with_context(to_date=date1).total_value`
   > Before fix: 150 (drifted with current standard_price)
   > After fix:  100 (stable, uses stored move value)

closes opw-6081736

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262127

### 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

### Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:
This PR introduces batch processing to the VAT Books ES (Libros de IVA) report generation. When attempting to export the report for periods containing a massive volume of invoices, the ORM cache continuously accumulates records, leading to severe memory consumption. By implementing batching and explicitly clearing the environment cache, use memory use will remain stable and efficient.

### Current behavior before PR:
Generating the VAT Books report loads all account move lines into memory at once. Because the ORM cache is never cleared during the iteration, RAM usage spikes continuously. On databases with tens or hundreds of thousands of invoices in a single period, this leads to significant performance degradation, worker timeouts, or complete Out-Of-Memory (OOM) crashes.

### Desired behavior after PR is merged:
The report engine now splits the recordset into manageable batches (e.g., 50,000 accounts per batch). After processing each chunk to extract the income and expense line values, invalidate_model() is called to flush the ORM cache related to the searched records. This frees up memory continuously, keeping the server's RAM usage flat and allowing the successful export of massive datasets without crashing.

### Benchmark:
The model is iterating through ~1.1M account move lines when generating the full report. 

For Memory:
| # Input Data | Before PR | After PR|
| -------- | -------- | -------- |
| ~77,000 account move lines | 385 MB | 666 MB |
| ~340,000 account move lines |1.2 GB | 1.5 GB |
| ~1.2M account move lines | MemoryError | 1.5 GB |

For Speed:
| # Input Data | Before PR | After PR|
| -------- | -------- | -------- |
| ~77,000 account move lines | 32s | 12s |
| ~340,000 account move lines | 2:29min | 1:11min |
| ~1.2M account move lines | MemoryError | 4:11min |

### Reference

opw-6037414

-----------------------------------------------------------------
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at [www.odoo.com/submit-pr](http://www.odoo.com/submit-pr)

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#116139

When the stock valuation closing report computes FIFO valuation at a
historical date, it recomputes each move's value via
`move._get_value(at_date)`. For moves without a purchase link (inventory
adjustments, initial inventory), the value falls through to
`_get_value_from_std_price()` which uses the current `standard_price`.

For FIFO products, `standard_price` is recalculated on every stock
operation (`total_value / qty_available`), so the historical valuation
drifts as new operations are processed.

This is the same root cause as https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/d2934b59e49ef943d957a80e53cca835a59fabef which fixed it for AVCO's
`_run_average_batch` by passing `forced_std_price`. This commit fixes
the FIFO path by using `move.value / move._get_valued_qty()` (the unit
price stored at validation time) as the fallback in
`_get_value_from_std_price` when `at_date` is set and no std_price was
explicitly forced.

Steps to reproduce (in `odoo-bin shell`, using freezegun's `freeze_time`
to backdate two operations to different dates, e.g. date1 = two days ago
and date2 = yesterday):

1. Create a FIFO periodic product with `standard_price = 10`
2. With `freeze_time(date1)`: apply an inventory adjustment of 10 units
3. With `freeze_time(date2)`: receive 10 units at unit cost 20
   > standard_price shifts to 15
4. Check `product.with_context(to_date=date1).total_value`
   > Before fix: 150 (drifted with current standard_price)
   > After fix:  100 (stable, uses stored move value)

closes opw-6081736

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262127

### 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

When we create a product variant and have a pricelist 
which is based on the cost price, and change the cost price, 
the on_sale_price doesn't update. You have the change the price 
list to other and back to the one you want for it to trigger 
change because the _onchange_compute_pricing only gets 
triggered if there's change on pricelist (pricer_sale_pricelist_id), 
and sales price (lst_price).

Steps to Reproduce:
1.Create a pricelist and add a line with "formula" price type, 
and based on "cost",
2.Create a product variant, and add the pricelist
just created.
3.Change the "Cost". The "On Sale Price" doesn't update. 
4.You have to change the price list to some other
and back to the one you want for the "On Sale Price" to update.

To fix the issue, we add the field Cost (standard_price) on 
api.onchange, so when we change the cost it'll
update the "On Sale Price" right away.

opw-5947995

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117806
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#111892

**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

Configuration:
- Costing method: FIFO, automated valuation
- Multi-currency: PO in a foreign currency (e.g. EUR), company currency USD
- Two different exchange rates: one active at bill date, one at receipt date
- Bill posted before any goods are received

Steps to reproduce:
- Set EUR as a secondary currency with two different rates:
    - Rate 1 on January 1st:  1 EUR = 1 USD
    - Rate 2 on January 8th:  1 EUR = 2 USD
- Create a PO in EUR for 20 units @ 10,000 EUR
- Post the vendor bill dated January 3rd (rate 1 applies: 1 EUR = 1 USD)
- Receive 10 units on a date after January 8th and create a backorder
- Receive the remaining 10 units from the backorder on the same date
- Inspect the stock valuation layers and interim account journal entries for both receipts

Prior to this commit:
  The two receipts, identical in quantity, date, and PO price, would produce different unit costs in USD. The backorder receipt would be incorrectly valued due to a wrong exchange rate being used when computing `receipt_value` in `_get_price_unit()`.

Receipt 2 (backorder):
    SVL 1 value: $100,000 USD
    Converted to EUR at receipt date (1 USD = 0.5 EUR):
    receipt_value = $100,000 × 0.5 = 50,000 EUR (wrong rate)
    total_invoiced_value = 200,000 EUR
    remaining_value = 200,000 - 50,000 = 150,000 EUR 
    remaining_qty = 20 - 10 = 10
    price_unit = 150,000 / 10 = 15,000 EUR
    Converted to USD at bill date (1 EUR = 1 USD):
    price_unit = $15,000 USD
    SVL value = $15,000 × 10 = $150,000

  This bug only affects backorder receipts. The first receipt always gets `receipt_value = 0` (no prior SVLs exist), so the problematic conversion never runs.

After this commit:
  `receipt_value` is now computed using `_get_currency_convert_date()` instead of `layer.create_date`. This ensures `receipt_value` and `total_invoiced_value` are both expressed in EUR at the same reference rate.

Receipt 2 (backorder):
    SVL 1 value: $100,000 USD
    Converted to EUR at bill date (1 EUR = 1 USD):
    receipt_value = $100,000 × 1.0 = 100,000 EUR (correct rate)
    total_invoiced_value = 200,000 EUR
    remaining_value = 200,000 - 100,000 = 100,000 EUR
    remaining_qty = 20 - 10 = 10
    price_unit = 100,000 / 10 = 10,000 EUR
    Converted to USD at bill date (1 EUR = 1 USD):
    price_unit = $10,000 USD
    SVL value = $10,000 × 10 = $100,000 

  Both receipts now produce identical unit costs regardless of exchange rate differences between bill date and receipt date.

OPW: 5426718



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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262577

### Issue:
When the company `tax_periodicity` is set to quarterly, the generated SII invoice JSON still uses the monthly period format

According to the documentation, the options for Periodo include distinction between monthly and trimester (p224 - 225):
https://sede.agenciatributaria.gob.es/static_files/Sede/Procedimiento_ayuda/G417/FicherosSuministros/V_1_1/SII-Descripcion-ServicioWeb-v1-1_es_es.pdf

### Cause:
The invoice JSON generation does not consider the company's `tax_periodicity`

This logic was probably omitted because `account_reports` may not be installed
However, when the periodicity is configured, the generated SII document should reflect it correctly

### Steps to reproduce:
- Install `l10n_es_edi_sii` and `account_reports`
- In Settings, set `Tax Periodicity` to `Quarterly`
- In Settings, set `Tax Agency for SII` to `Agencia Tributaria Española`
- Change ES Company vat number to `ESA12345674`
- Create an invoice (Date: 01/05/2026, Customer: ES Company)
- Open the generated JSON document
- Check the Periodo value, it should be 2T in May

opw-6050587

Steps to produce:
---
- Install the `Accounting` module.
- Create several invoices for a portal user with different payment states (e.g., In Payment, Not Paid, Paid).
- Log in as the portal user.
- Navigate to the invoices list and attempt to sort by **Status**.

Issue:-
---
- Sorting by **Status** does not reflect the actual invoice payment status, resulting in incorrect ordering.

Root cause:
---
- At [1], the sorting field for Status is set to state, which corresponds to invoice states (Draft, Posted, Cancelled). However, the portal displays and expects sorting based on payment_state.

Fix:
---
- Update the sorting configuration to use payment_state instead of state,
  ensuring that invoices are sorted correctly according to their payment
  status on the portal.

[1]https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5b85287ec4ea9f1b51e0f33402900777dfeeb725/addons/account/controllers/portal.py#L46-L52

opw-6128998
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

When creating a calendar event by dragging on the calendar view, modifying the end time in the quick-create popover, and then clicking "More Options", the duration shown in the full form is the original drag value instead of the value implied by the user's updated stop.

calendar's makeContextDefaults seeds default_start, default_stop, default_duration, and default_allday from the drag extent. In the quick-create popover, changing stop triggers _compute_duration on that record so its duration becomes correct. On "More Options", goToFullEvent extracts a whitelist of fields from the quick-create record as default_X and merges them with the original drag context.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/c82341c503ac/addons/calendar/static/src/views/calendar_form/calendar_quick_create.js#L9-L19

duration is missing from that whitelist, so the merged context still carries the stale default_duration from the drag. In the full form, that default is applied to the duration field and _compute_duration does not run because a default was provided for a stored, writable field.

Adding duration to the whitelist forwards the quick-create's recomputed value as default_duration so the full form opens with the correct duration.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Open Calendar, drag to create a 2-hour event (e.g. 10:00-12:00)
2. In the quick-create popover, change the end time to 14:00
3. Click "More Options"
4. Check the Duration field in the full form

=> Duration shows the original drag value (02:00) instead of 04:00

opw-6087449