Step to reproduce:
- install "pos_settle_due"
- create a pos order, set order price = 0, select a customer
- go to payment page, select "customer account" as payment method
- here you can set any amount to pay, ex 100$
- fulfill the  order.

Observation:
- the order amount is 0, if we pay 100$ using customer account, it is considered as change (which means we returned it to customer)
- As per PO, this flow doesn't make sense

Issue:
- customer has 100$ due for this order, but he won't be able to settle this as fetch order to settle with amount != 0, after commit [1] 
- [1] https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/12af23d5382e972facfaa999e4c5ab30c97e8d1f

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/951e5f42884c898bc14d9c32ae6a8f08c31ff06d/pos_settle_due/static/src/app/screens/partner_list/partner_line/partner_line.js#L35

Fix:
- we hide payment method of type "pay_later" in case of 0 price order

opw-6123699

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118864
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#116556

**Steps to reproduce:**
* Install *Türkiye - Nilvera* (`l10n_tr_nilvera`) module.
* Log in as *admin user*.
* Create a *partner* for the company.
  * Set *country* as Turkey.
  * Configure required *taxes*.
* Create a *demo user*.
* Grant the demo user *Accounting admin access*.
* Log in with the *demo user*.
* Navigate to *Contacts* → open the *Turkey company partner*.
* Navigate to *Nilvera Status* (via Invoicing/Accounting tab) click on *Verify*.

**Observed behavior:**
* A *company access error* is raised during partner verification.

**Cause:**
* The field *l10n_tr_nilvera_api_key* is restricted with `groups='base.group_system'`, requiring full system admin rights.
* Users with *module-level admin access* (e.g., Accounting) do not have sufficient rights, causing the access error.

**Fix:**
* Use `sudo()` on `env.company` to bypass the restrictive group access.
* This allows users with appropriate *functional admin rights* to perform verification without granting full system privileges.

Ticket [link](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project.task/6106907)
opw-6106907

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#267286
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262668

…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#118805
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#114873

When a sale order containing a product with a custom (free text) attribute was settled in POS, the order line displayed the placeholder attribute value name (e.g. "Custom") instead of the actual text entered by the customer.

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
* Create a product with a free text attribute (create_variant='no_variant', is_custom=True)
* Go to the website's shop (works best in a new private tab)
* Fill the free text attribute and add the product to the cart
* Click on checkout
* In POS, open Quotation/Order and settle the order

> Observation:
the order line shows "Custom" instead of the text

Why the fix:
------------
`SaleOrderLine._load_pos_data_fields` was not exposing `product_no_variant_attribute_value_ids` nor `product_custom_attribute_value_ids`, so the JS `settleSO` function received no attribute data on the `line` object. As a result, the new POS order line was created with empty `attribute_value_ids` and `custom_attribute_value_ids`, leaving `constructFullProductName` unable to find the custom text.

The fix adds both fields to `_load_pos_data_fields` and updates `settleSO` to use them when building the new POS order line. The dynamic fetch path (`_getSaleOrder`) is also updated to explicitly read the `product.attribute.custom.value` records so the data is available for orders loaded at runtime.

opw-5958678

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#266875
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#251993

Several error are logged in the chatter when signing a payslip that includes an IMSS disability time off.

Steps to reproduce:
* Install l10n_mx_hr_payroll_account modules
* Switch to "INNOVACION VALOR Y DESARROLLO SA SA" company
* Go to Employees and open Cesar Osbaldo Cruz Solorzano
* Click on "Time Off" smart button and create a new time off with "Disability due to illness (IMSS)" type for "02/01/2026"(Any date).
* Go to Payroll > Payslips > Payslips and create a new pay run
* Select Salary Structure 'Mexico: Regular Pay', Pay Schedule 'Monthly' and the Period '01/01/2026 -> 01/31/2026'
* Click on Continue, select Cesar and click on Select
* Open the payslip, click on "Validate" and "Ok"
* Mark as paid, open the "Journal Entry" from the smart button and click on "Post".
* Back to the payslip, and click on "Generate CFDI" button.
* An error is added to the chatter.

### Missing node to declare disabilities
Original message
```py
An error occurred while signing the CFDI document with the government:
Code : NOM111 Message : Error no clasificado. Extra Info : El nodo
"Incapacidades" se debera informar si se incluye en percepciones la
clave 014 "Subsidios por Incapacidad" o bien en deducciones la clave 006
"Descuento por incapacidad".
```

Translated message
```py
An error occurred while signing the CFDI document with the government:
Code: NOM111 Message: Unclassified error. Extra Info: The "Incapacidades"
(Disabilities) node must be reported if the perception key 014
"Subsidios por Incapacidad" (Disability Subsidies) is included, or if
the deduction key 006 "Descuento por incapacidad" (Disability Deduction)
is included.
```

Legal Context:
According to Mexican law, IMSS disabilities must be declared in a specific XML node.

There are two primary scenarios for reporting these amounts:
* Deduction (Type 006): The employer does not pay for these days, as the IMSS is responsible for the payment to the employee.
  This is the most common scenario.

* Perception (Type 014): The employer pays for these days as a superior benefit. For example, by law, the IMSS does not pay for the first 3 days of a disability due to illness, and employers are not obligated to cover them either. However, companies offering superior benefits may choose to pay these days as a "Disability Subsidy."

Solution:
The chosen approach is to configure the Deduction node.
For the `l10n_mx_regular_pay_imss_disabilities` rule, the `l10n_mx_concept` has been set to `l10n_mx_concept_d6` (D06 - Disability Deduction). This ensures the required node is added.

### Missing "ImporteMonetario" attribute
Original message
```
An error occurred while signing the CFDI document with the government:
Code : NOM95 Message : El atributo Deduccion:Importe no es igual a la
suma de los nodos Incapacidad:ImporteMonetario, ya que la clave
expresada en Nomina.Deducciones.Deduccion.TipoDeduccion es "006".
```

Translated message
```
An error occurred while signing the CFDI document with the government:
Code: NOM95 Message: The attribute "Deduccion:Importe" does not match
the sum of the "Incapacidad:ImporteMonetario" nodes, as the key
expressed in "Nomina.Deducciones.Deduccion.TipoDeduccion" is "006".
```

Problem:
The "Incapacidades" node requires the "ImporteMonetario" attribute, which should represent the sum of the monetary value associated with the disabilities.

Solution:
Add the "ImporteMonetario" attribute and calculate its value using `l10n_mx_daily_salary`.

### Invalid "DiasIncapacidad" format
```py
An error occurred while signing the CFDI document with the government:
Code : 301 Message : XML mal formado Extra Info : Element
'{[http://www.sat.gob.mx/nomina12}Incapacidad](http://www.sat.gob.mx/nomina12%7DIncapacidad)', attribute
'DiasIncapacidad': '4.0' is not a valid value of the local atomic type.
```

Problem:
Altough the defaultdict where the values are sum up, `number_of_days` is
a float field, and when we get back the value, it is a float, adding for
example 4.0 instead of 4, which is not a valid value.

Solution:
Cast the value to int.

### Duplicate deduction on disabilities
```py
Wrong python code defined for:
- Employee: Cesar Osbaldo Cruz Solorzano
- Version: False
- Payslip: Salary Slip - Cesar Osbaldo Cruz Solorzano - 05/01/2026 - 05/15/2026
- Salary rule: ISR (Income Tax) (ISR)
- Error: TypeError('cannot unpack non-iterable NoneType object') while
evaluating
"
def find_rates(x, rates):
    for low, high, fix, rate in rates:
        if low <= x <= high:
            return low, high, fix, rate

gross = categories['GROSS']
result = 0
if gross:
    isr_table = payslip._rule_parameter('l10n_mx_isr_tables')[version.schedule_pay]
    low, high, fix, rate = find_rates(gross, isr_table)
    result = -((gross - low) * rate + fix)

period_factor = payslip._rule_parameter('l10n_mx_schedule_table')[version.schedule_pay]
if period_factor >= 15:
    period_factor = (period_factor / 30) * (365 / 12)
min_wage = payslip._rule_parameter('l10n_mx_daily_min_wage') * period_factor

if gross <= min_wage:
    result_qty = 0.0
"
```

Problem:
The IMSS disability amount is being deducted twice:
1. During "Worked Days" calculation, the IMSS disability is already not considered because the work entries belong to the "Unpaid Work Entry Types" of "Mexico: Regular Pay" structure.
2. During "Salary Computation", the `IMSS_DISABLE` salary rule deducts another time because it is in the `TAXABLE_ALW` category, and this one is deducted in the `NET` rule.

When the disability covers more than half of the period (e.g., 20 days in a monthly schedule), the double deduction causes the NET to become negative. This prevents the ISR rule from finding a correct stage in the tax tables, leading to a traceback.

Example: For a monthly wage of 30,000.0 and 5 disability days:
- The total amount in "Worked Days" is 25,000.0 (disabilities already deducted).
- The IMSS_DISABLE rule calculates -5,000.0, and when the NET rule is calculated, the disabilities are deducted again. Total NET becomes 16,843.84 instead of the expected 20,834.85.

Solution:
Change the rule category to `INTERMEDIARY_COMPUTATION` and avoid the double deduction when the `NET` is calculated, as it is already considered in the "Worked Days".

### Incorrect values in the XML
The signing process completes without errors, but some amounts in the generated XML are incorrect.

Problem:
The introduction of the Deduction 006 (Disability) directly impacts the calculation of the SubTotal and Total attributes in the Comprobante node.
For a monthly payslip with a wage of 30,000.00 (daily salary of 1,000.00) and 5 disability days (work risk), the values are calculated incorrectly as follows:
Attribute            | Calculation                      | Actual Value | Correct Value
---------------------|----------------------------------|--------------|--------------
Comprobante:SubTotal | Sum of Perceptions (P01)         | 25000.00     | 30000.00 (1)
Comprobante:Total    | SubTotal - Total Deductions (2)  | 15803.74     | 20803.74

(1) Must include the 5,000.00 from disabilities to balance the deduction.
(2) Total Deductions = D06 (5,000.00) + ISR (3,451.65) + IMSS (744.61) = 9,196.26.

The Total is currently undercalculated because the 5,000.00 is being
deducted from the SubTotal that already had those 5,000.00 excluded.

Solution:
Since the `SubTotal` is derived from Perceptions, and the "(P01)
Salaries, Wages, Stripes, and Day Labor" amount is driven by the
`GROSS_WITHOUT_HOLIDAY` rule, the disability amount must be added. This
balances the Deduction 006, ensuring `SubTotal` is correct.

### Absenteeism and Disabilities
By law, the calculation of IMSS contributions depends on these two types of unpaid days:
* Disabilities: Refers to medical leave issued by the Institute (IMSS).
* Absenteeism: Refers to unjustified leave; apply for periods of fewer than 8 days.

Source: [Artículo 31](https://www.imss.gob.mx/sites/all/statics/pdf/leyes/LSS.pdf)
Translated text:
Article 31. When wages are not paid due to the employee's absence from work, but the employment relationship persists, the monthly contribution shall be adjusted according to the following rules:

I. If the employee's absences are for periods of fewer than eight consecutive or non-consecutive days, contributions shall be calculated and paid for such periods only for the sickness and maternity insurance...
If the employee's absences are for periods of eight consecutive days or more, the employer shall be released from the payment of employer-employee contributions...

IV. In the case of absences covered by medical disabilities issued by the Institute, it shall not be mandatory to cover the employer-employee contributions, except regarding the retirement branch.

The following table summarizes the contribution requirements based on the type of absence:
Insurance Branch (RAMA)         | Section I (Absenteeism) | Section IV (Disability)
--------------------------------|-------------------------|------------------------
Sickness and Maternity          | Paid                    | Not Paid
Disability and Life             | Not Paid                | Not Paid
Severance and Old Age           | Not Paid                | Not Paid
Work Risk                       | Not Paid                | Not Paid
Daycare and Social Benefits     | Not Paid                | Not Paid
INFONAVIT                       | Not Paid                | Paid
Retirement                      | Not Paid                | Paid

The type of unpaid day to be considered depends on the specific insurance branch being calculated within the employer-employee contributions.

### Add test for cfdi with disabilities.

target: 19.0
task-6066160

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#116819

When a user installs only the Invoicing app and creates a new purchase journal, no default_account_id is set on the journal. The Invoicing app does not expose account configuration, so the user cannot fix this manually. As a result, importing a Peppol XML invoice through that journal fails with a database constraint error because the generated account.move.line has a null account_id.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/16245530f0e3e9be21c8b96baaecd3a679420cac/addons/account/models/account_journal.py#L776-L805 This already auto-creates accounts for bank/cash journals, but does nothing for sale/purchase journals.

Steps to reproduce:
- Install the Invoicing app (no full Accounting)
- Create a new purchase journal with type 'purchase'
- Go to Vendors -> Bills and Upload a Peppol XML file
- Error importing attachment as invoice (decoder=_import_invoice_ubl_cii)

Ticket [link](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/action-4043/6014363)
opw-6014363

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#267552
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#252859

**Steps to Reproduce:**

1. Configure the website default language different from the user’s current language.
2. Go to Website → Site → Pages.
3. Duplicate an existing page.
4. Edit the duplicated page and save the changes.
5. Duplicate the edited page again.
6. Observe that the newly duplicated page is generated from the original page content instead of the updated duplicated page.

**Issue:**

When duplicating a website page, the website default language was not passed in the context. As a result, the duplication was performed using the active user language.

The root cause is that `copy()` does not simply duplicate the existing `arch_db` translation dictionary. Instead, it copies the field value in the current language and then rebuilds all translations through `copy_translations()`.

This behavior becomes problematic when `delayed translations` are involved. After a page is modified in a non-default language, the latest changes may be stored in a delayed translation entry (`_{lang}`) while the regular translation value remains unchanged. During the copy process, these delayed translation entries are intentionally discarded because they are considered temporary data and are not treated as valid language translations.

As a result, when the page is duplicated from a non-default language, `copy()` rebuilds the translations using an outdated translation value instead of the most recent content stored in the delayed translation. The newly
duplicated page therefore does not accurately reflect the current state of the source page.

**Solution:**

The fix enables `check_translation=True` during page duplication so that the copy operation uses the latest translation state, including delayed translations when available. This ensures duplicated pages are generated
from the most recent version of the source page and keeps translated content consistent across languages.

**opw-5914281**

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264656

Issue
-----
Traceback when trying to get a rate through the e-commerce if the order has to be split into multiple packages due to weight being too high.

Steps to reproduce
-----
- Setup Sendcloud delivery method
	- make it available in e-commerce
- Create a 150kg product and publish it
- Go to e-commerce
	- Add the product to cart
	- Checkout the cart

> Traceback

Cause
-----
We retrieve the order's weight through the context.

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/d9a9339e1f30f1e5cc37ebb88949451a6652f83b/delivery_sendcloud/models/delivery_carrier.py#L108

If the call to `_get_shipping_rate` returns that the delivery requires multiple packages, we go into

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/d9a9339e1f30f1e5cc37ebb88949451a6652f83b/delivery_sendcloud/models/delivery_carrier.py#L126-L128

If `order_weight` was not present in the context, this will cause an error in `sendcloud_convert_weight` since it expects a numerical value but receives the `None` fallback. This context key is only present when going through `choose.delivery.carrier` (so not in the e-commerce flow).

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/058e640e6687ed3f709dc846f0fa7a1f45226849/addons/delivery/wizard/choose_delivery_carrier.py#L69

-----
Ticket:
opw-6210398

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119048
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117028

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#267409
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262127

__

## Short functional explanation of the error
When setting a time off for an employee who has a flexible schedule, in the attendance app, on the calendar with the 'days' view. We can see that the hours are grayed out from 8 hours to 16 hours. However, according to this message:
https://www.odoo.com/mail/message/1027495005
"[...] the entire day of absence might not be represented as such, which is an issue (for example if a flexible employee with 8h/day takes a day off, the duration of the leave should be 1 day/8 hours but on the gantt view everything should be gray from midnight to midnight)".
Moreover, when we select the Week or Month view on the calendar, the day off isn't grayed out. This comes from the fact that, for a flexible schedule, we consider that any time of the day can be a working hour; and we only grey out days in the calendar where no hour has been worked at all. Hence, the hours considered during a flexible day off should be from midnight to 23:59:59.

## Reproduction Steps
1. Go to an employee's profile and set their schedule to flexible.
2. Create a time off of a one-day duration for this employee.
3. Go to the attendance app and see the calendar.

### Expected behavior
When clicking on the Day view, all hours from midnight to 11pm should be grayed out.

When clicking on the Week/month view, the day of the time off should be grayed out.

### Unexpected behavior
When clicking on the Day view, hours from 8am to 4pm are grayed out.

When clicking on the Week/month view, the day of the time off isn't grayed out.

## Origin of the issue
First, we only consider the leave if the resource is fully flexible, i.e if the employee has no working calendar set:
 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/394a30f8a2814d460cfe220b5017e7ac95d8cddc/addons/resource/models/resource_calendar.py#L546
However, if the schedule of the employee is flexible, the leave resource isn't considered as fully flexible, thus leading us to a leave from 8 am to 4 pm.

Moreover, when processing flexible leaves, we return the unavailable intervals with the timezone of the employee:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/394a30f8a2814d460cfe220b5017e7ac95d8cddc/addons/resource/models/resource_calendar.py#L589-L592 Whereas when we process fixed leaves, we return the unavailable intervals under utc:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/394a30f8a2814d460cfe220b5017e7ac95d8cddc/addons/resource/models/resource_calendar.py#L597-L601

This leads us to display problems: when the user is under European/ Brussels time in summer, the leave starts at 2 am and ends at 11pm, instead of starting at midnight.

Note: after discussion with AJU, it has been agreed that the behavior
should be the same on the Planning app.
__
opw-6030212



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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#267234
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#256636

__

## Short functional explanation of the error
When setting a time off for an employee who has a flexible schedule, in the attendance app, on the calendar with the 'days' view. We can see that the hours are grayed out from 8 hours to 16 hours. However, according to this message:
https://www.odoo.com/mail/message/1027495005
"[...] the entire day of absence might not be represented as such, which is an issue (for example if a flexible employee with 8h/day takes a day off, the duration of the leave should be 1 day/8 hours but on the gantt view everything should be gray from midnight to midnight)".
Moreover, when we select the Week or Month view on the calendar, the day off isn't grayed out. This comes from the fact that, for a flexible schedule, we consider that any time of the day can be a working hour; and we only grey out days in the calendar where no hour has been worked at all. Hence, the hours considered during a flexible day off should be from midnight to 23:59:59.

## Reproduction Steps
1. Go to an employee's profile and set their schedule to flexible.
2. Create a time off of a one-day duration for this employee.
3. Go to the attendance app and see the calendar.

### Expected behavior
When clicking on the Day view, all hours from midnight to 11pm should be grayed out.

When clicking on the Week/month view, the day of the time off should be grayed out.

### Unexpected behavior
When clicking on the Day view, hours from 8am to 4pm are grayed out.

When clicking on the Week/month view, the day of the time off isn't grayed out.

## Origin of the issue
First, we only consider the leave if the resource is fully flexible, i.e if the employee has no working calendar set:
 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/394a30f8a2814d460cfe220b5017e7ac95d8cddc/addons/resource/models/resource_calendar.py#L546
However, if the schedule of the employee is flexible, the leave resource isn't considered as fully flexible, thus leading us to a leave from 8 am to 4 pm.

Moreover, when processing flexible leaves, we return the unavailable intervals with the timezone of the employee:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/394a30f8a2814d460cfe220b5017e7ac95d8cddc/addons/resource/models/resource_calendar.py#L589-L592 Whereas when we process fixed leaves, we return the unavailable intervals under utc:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/394a30f8a2814d460cfe220b5017e7ac95d8cddc/addons/resource/models/resource_calendar.py#L597-L601

This leads us to display problems: when the user is under European/ Brussels time in summer, the leave starts at 2 am and ends at 11pm, instead of starting at midnight.
Note: after discussion with AJU, it has been agreed that the behavior
should be the same on the Planning app.
__
opw-6030212

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118832
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#112482

Problem:
When the selection is inside a `contenteditable="true"` element that is not the root editable, focusing away does not trigger a save.

Cause:
When the DOM contains a nested contenteditable structure like:

```html
<div class="odoo-editor-editable" contenteditable="true">
  abc
  <div contenteditable="false">
    ac
    <div contenteditable="true">a</div>
  </div>
</div>
```

With the selection inside the inner `contenteditable="true"`, the `blur` event is not triggered on `.odoo-editor-editable` when focusing away, because the active element is the inner div and `blur` does not bubble.

Solution:
Replace the `blur` listener with `focusout`, which bubbles from the inner `contenteditable="true"` up to `.odoo-editor-editable`, allowing `onBlur` to be called correctly.

Steps to reproduce:
- Open Project > Task.
- Add a `/column` block in the description.
- Focus inside any column and write some text.
- Click away to change tab.
- Reopen the description tab.
- The latest changes inside the columns were not saved.

opw-6227922

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#266367

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install the `l10n_gt_edi` module and switch to a `GT Company`.
- Navigate to Invoicing > Vendors > Bills.
- Create a new vendor bill.
- Observe that `GT Document Type` includes `NABN - Nota de Pago Electrónica` option.
- `Confirm` the bill.
- Click `Credit Note`, add a reason, and click `Reverse`.
- Observe the available options in the `GT Document Type` field.

**Observation:**
The `NABN - Nota de Pago Electrónica` option is not available for 
vendor credit notes (`in_refund`), even though `NABN` is a GT-specific 
credit note document type.

**Root Cause:**
At [1], `NABN` is added for vendor bills (`in_invoice`, `in_receipt`) 
instead of vendor credit notes (`in_refund`).

**Fix:**
This commit ensures users can correctly select `NABN - Nota de Pago Electrónica` 
on GT vendor credit notes.

[1]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/c7fa8c9c6f6830f5702fab4f6efaf3ac33f7fe72/l10n_gt_edi/models/account_move.py#L159-L160

opw-6252256

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119215
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118711

### Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:
**Issue:** When processing incoming EDI/Peppol invoices, multiple contacts (parent companies, joint ventures, child contacts) frequently share the same VAT number. Because the parser's tie-breaker relies primarily on VAT, invoices are often incorrectly assigned to individual child contacts or newly created joint ventures rather than the correct vendor.

**Solution:** Prepend is_company DESC, supplier_rank DESC to the SQL search order in the _import_retrieve_customer fallback domain. This ensures that the matching logic explicitly prioritizes business entities over individual contacts, and active vendors over other records.

### Current behavior before PR: 
When searching by VAT with limit=1, the parser uses order='company_id, parent_id DESC, id DESC'. If a parent company and a child contact share a VAT, the query frequently returns the child contact or a newer joint venture due to the id DESC fallback.

### Desired behavior after PR is merged: 
The parser will correctly prioritize main companies over individual contacts when VAT numbers are shared. If multiple companies share the same VAT, the most active vendor will be selected.

opw-6174628

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#266224