**Steps to reproduce:**
* Create a parent company with a branch company (Settings > Companies).
* Create a user whose **only** allowed company is the branch.
* While logged in as a parent-company admin, open the Miscellaneous Operations journal, find the first or second posted entry, reset it to draft, clear its name to a digits-only value (e.g. `0001`) and save – leaving it in draft state.  This stores `sequence_prefix = ''` and `sequence_number = 1` in the database.
* Log in as the branch-company user.
* Navigate to Accounting > Journal Entries > New.
* Set any date and save the draft entry (or simply write `name = '/'` on it).

**Observed behavior:**
* Saving fails with: `odoo.exceptions.AccessError: You are not allowed to access 'Journal Entry' (account.move) records.`

**Cause:**
* `_update_sequence_made_gap`, introduced in 19.0, detects sequence holes by running a raw SQL query that finds the two entries immediately before and after each move in the same journal with the same `sequence_prefix`. The query contains **no `company_id` filter**.

* In a branch-company setup the parent's journal (`journal_id`) is shared across companies.  When an early entry's `name` is cleared to a digits-only value its `sequence_prefix` becomes `''`.  A new entry created by the branch user also starts with `name = '/'`, which gives it `sequence_prefix = ''` and `sequence_number = 0`.  The SQL therefore returns the parent company's entry (`sequence_number = 1`, `sequence_prefix = ''`) as the `next_id` neighbour.

* The IDs from that query are passed to a local `browse()` closure, which in 19.0 read: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/af37df9bee34fe60c1e51896af23fc7fe9b76cfc/addons/account/models/account_move.py#L5770-L5771

* `self.browse()` inherits the **non-sudo** environment of the branch user. When the method subsequently writes `move_n1.made_sequence_gap = …` on the browsed parent-company record, the ORM record-rule check finds the branch user has no access to that company → **`AccessError`**.

* This is a regression from 18.4 where the equivalent `_set_next_made_sequence_gap` explicitly used `.sudo()` when searching for neighbour moves: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/22d84ae99bb79e7b1022367e6bc1b61cc8d9e8b1/addons/account/models/account_move.py#L5453-L5457

**Fix:**
* Add `.sudo()` inside the `browse()` closure so that neighbouring moves are always accessed with elevated rights, regardless of the calling user's company context.
* `made_sequence_gap` is a UI-only flag that indicates sequence holes; it carries no security or financial significance, making the sudo escalation safe.

opw-6231085

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#266676

Issue
Upon initialization of the pos a PaymentInterface is constructed for every pos_payment_method (even archived pos payment methods ?!). [As we allow only one WebSocket subscription per channel](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/4e1c89890c5fd54a79dcf5bf20268e51d8fe6e69/addons/point_of_sale/static/src/app/utils/payment/payment_interface.js#L100) for the PaymentInterface, all webhook responses will be linked to only one PaymentInterface. Meaning that when you have two Mercado Pago pos_payment_method terminals configured, only the first pos_payment_method (id=1) will be subscribed to the WebSocket and all the webhook responses from the second pos_payment_method terminal (id=2) will arrive to the PayementInterface of the first pos_payment_method (id=1). Where payload.payment_method_id (id=2) != this.payment_method_id.id (id=1).

Solution
- Only iterate and create a PaymentInterface for compatible pos_payment_methods which are active
- Check if the webhook response is linked to the PendingPaymentLine

opw-6069455

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262184

Step to reproduce:
- install point_of_sale with demo
- have two company and 1 pos in each company
- install pos_hr
- install pos_sale

Observation:
- we get a traceback
```
File "/src/saas-19.2/odoo/orm/fields_misc.py", line 115, in __get__
    raise ValueError("Expected singleton: %s" % record) from None
ValueError: Expected singleton: res.company(7, 8)
 ```
- and pos_sale is not installed

Cause:
- when installing `pos_sale`  `_ensure_downpayment_product` is called.
- this sets downpayment product on every `pos.config` record.
- this triggers write call from pos_hr, which tries to identify users for pos
- this uses `with_company(self.company)`   <-----  actual issue
- here self has two config, each from different company, hence `with_company`
raises singleton error

why not in earlier verison:
- before commit [1] we only set downpayment product on only pos_config_main
- now we set it on every pos.config, so now self contain multiple records

[1] https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/a3f9114434c7cab8757b0283698662792e6b7946

Fix:
- compute users by first grouping them over company_id
related pr: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/254026


opw-6217135

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264962

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262976

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#267455
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265183

### 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#266899
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#257827

### 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

The Inventory Valuation report at a past date rebuilds historical value by tracing stock moves. Two product.value lookups run on the hot path and both hit unindexed columns:

- stock.move._get_manual_value() searches product.value by move_id for every traced move;
- product.product._get_last_product_value() searches product.value by product_id.

product.value declares neither column with an index, so each lookup performs a sequential scan of the whole table. This is harmless on small tables but degrades sharply as product.value grows (one row is written per manual standard-price/move revaluation).

On a database where product.value held ~9.6M rows, the per-move move_id lookup seq-scans the entire table only to return nothing (no row carries a move_id), repeated for every traced move, so the historical report never completes.

Index product_id (dense) and move_id (btree_not_null, since it is null for every manual revaluation row). Each lookup then becomes an index scan.

Measured on a ~9.6M-row product.value, historical valuation report, single date:

| product.value lookup        | without index             | with index         |
| --------------------------- | ------------------------- | ------------------ |
| by product_id (DISTINCT ON) | ~0.56s (1.7 GB seq scan)  | index scan         |
| by move_id, per traced move | full seq scan, returns 0  | index scan         |
| report (~3.1M moves traced) | never completes (>20 min) | completes (~3 min) |

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#266790

Issue before this PR:-
========================
Currently, the total remaining time in the MO kanban header is computed by directly summing the `remaining_time` of all manufacturing orders in the column. This also includes overtime (negative remaining time), which incorrectly reduces the actual remaining workload.

Steps to reproduce:
========================
1) Install the `mrp_workorder` module.
2) Create 2 MOs with a work order.
3) Start the work order and wait until the real duration exceeds the expected duration (`real duration > expected duration`).
4) Pause the work order and open the MO kanban view.
5) Observe that the negative remaining time is shown in the column header.

Cause of the issue:
========================
The `groupAggregate` method in the `MrpProductionKanbanHeader` component directly sums all `remaining_time` values, including negative ones. Since negative values represent overtime that has already been consumed, they should not reduce the future workload displayed in the kanban header.

After this PR:
========================
This PR updates the method to treat negative remaining time as `0` when computing the total remaining time, ensuring that the kanban header correctly reflects the remaining future workload.

TaskId:- 6226535

__

## Short functional explanation of the error
When confirming a Purchase Order holding lines with an analytic distribution that has been manually added, and creating a vendor bill out of this PO using the Auto-Complete field. When we change the account of that line, the line loses the manually added Analytic Distribution.

## Reproduction Steps
1. Go to Accounting. Click on the tab Configuration; under the Analytic Accounting section, click on Analytic Distribution Models.
2. Create an Analytic Distribution Model for a product.
3. Go to Purchase. Create a new PO, set a Vendor and select the product you created the Analytic Distribution Model for. On the right side of the form, click on the view menu and check Analytic Distribution to make it appear.
4. Click on the Analytic Distribution of the product and add a new one; for example, select Administrative in the Departments section.
5. Confirm order.
6. Go to Accounting and click on the Vendors tab > Bills. Create a new bill, and in the field Auto-Complete, select the PO you just created.
7. Change the account of the line.

### Expected behavior
Only the account should be changed on the line.

### Unexpected behavior
The manually added Analytic Distribution has disappeared.

## Origin of the issue
When we change the `account_id` field, the compute method `_compute_analytic_distribution` is triggered. This method retrieves the related distributions of the line:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/af32885ec5f07d492f3b8e8fff1785996a739f72/addons/account/models/account_move_line.py#L1154 which, in the context of Purchase, calls this method: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/af32885ec5f07d492f3b8e8fff1785996a739f72/addons/purchase/models/account_invoice.py#L540-L545 We retrieve the distribution of the related line using `self.purchase_line_id.analytic_distribution`. However, this code isn't triggered when the move line has an analytic distribution, even though the related line `purchase_line_id` might have one! Therefore, we need to execute that code whether or not our move line has an analytic distribution.
Note: the same behavior is to avoid when creating invoices for
quotations.
__
opw-6062466

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#267274
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#258380

Currently, an error occurs when a user opens a payslip.

**Steps to Reproduce:**
 - Install the `documents_hr_payroll` module.
 - Go to `Payroll` > `Payslips` > `Payslips` and open an `existing payslip` or `create a new one`.
 - Add `two or more attachments` to the payslip.
 - Go to `Documents` and, in the left panel, navigate to `Company` > `Employees - YourCompany` > 
   `Payroll YourCompany`, then `Move to Trash` all documents related to those `payslip attachments`.
 - Go back to `Payslips` and open the `same payslip` again.

`ValueError: Expected singleton: hr.payslip(4, 4)`

With [this commit], the attachment's "Add to Document" action allows creating a Document from a 
mail.thread record attachment. When the user deletes the documents related to the attachments and 
then opens the payslip again, the compute method runs to calculate the linked document ID for the 
payslip attachments and tries to retrieve attachments without documents [1].
The issue occurs when two or more attachments share the same payslip ID. While mapping the res_id 
of the attachments and grouping them by ID, the same payslip record is included multiple times for a 
single key [2] [3], which raises error here [4].

This commit ensures that the mapped res_id values are wrapped in a set, so duplicate IDs are removed 
and each payslip ID appears only once.

[this commit]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/5fa4b74a2345ddd4858585c5e9a780d1ca5add57

[1]- https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/21477b333f7a33cb582cd806236e4f9f8346d022/documents/models/ir_attachment.py#L26

[2]- https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/21477b333f7a33cb582cd806236e4f9f8346d022/documents/models/ir_attachment.py#L45

[3]- https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/21477b333f7a33cb582cd806236e4f9f8346d022/documents/models/ir_attachment.py#L48

[4]- https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/21477b333f7a33cb582cd806236e4f9f8346d022/documents_hr_payroll/models/hr_payslip.py#L74-L76

sentry-7494229711

### 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