Currently, an error occurs when a user creates an account record.

Steps to Reproduce:
 - Install `Accounting` and `l10n_mx` module with demo data.
 - Switch to `ZAPATERIA URTADO ÑERI` company.
 - Go to `Accounting` > `Configuration` > `Accounting` > `Chart of Accounts` and create a record.

`TypeError: 'bool' object is not subscriptable`

After a [recent commit], account codes became optional and can be removed. As a result, when a 
user creates an account without a code, the code attempts to check whether the first letter of the 
account code is in the debit codes [1]. Since the account code is False, it raises an error.

This commit ensures that if the internal group of an account is asset or expense, the debit tag is 
assigned to the account. Otherwise, the credit tag is assigned to the account tags.

[recent commit]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/c3313b336b9f1305c363097745926f2bdf61e277

[1]- https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/a60643538479caf29aefeec89b8d356d8d5439c7/addons/l10n_mx/models/account_account.py#L17-L20

sentry-7490691483

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

**Steps to reproduce:**
* install `l10n_lu_reports`.
* Create a company in Luxembourg with a `company_registry` number set.
* Link this company to an accounting firm that is a natural person (independent accountant) with no business registration number — i.e. `l10n_lu_agent_rcs_number` is left empty on the agent partner.
* Go to the tax report and generate the XML declaration.

**Observed behavior:**
* The `<Agent><RCSNbr>` field in the generated XML contains the company's own `company_registry` value instead of `NE`.
* The file is rejected by the Luxembourg tax administration.

**Cause:**
* In `l10n_lu_generate_xml.py`, the `agent_rcs_number` template value was built with a plain `or` chain: `agent.l10n_lu_agent_rcs_number or company.company_registry or "NE"`
* When an agent is set but has no RCS number (natural person), the fallback incorrectly continued to `company.company_registry` instead of stopping at `"NE"`.

**Fix:**
* Use a conditional expression so that `company.company_registry` is only used as a fallback when **no agent is linked** to the company: `(agent.l10n_lu_agent_rcs_number if agent else company.company_registry) or "NE"`

opw-6044689

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#112968

When a new version is created from the salary configurator,
a tracking message summarizing field changes is posted on
the employee chatter. This message may contain sensitive
payroll information such as wage and yearly cost, which
should not be visible to users outside the payroll group.

Previously, all tracking messages on hr.employee were
visible to any user with access to the employee record.
After the mail tracking refactor introduced in task (3645865)
(https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project/1251/tasks/3645865),
tracking values are now rendered directly into the message
body, making the old field-level filtering mechanism no
longer applicable.

To restore payroll visibility restrictions:
* Tracking values linked to payroll-restricted fields are
  separated from regular tracking values during `_track_log`.
* Payroll-sensitive tracking values are posted in a dedicated
  tracking message using the subtype
  `mt_hr_payroll_sensitive`.
* Regular tracking values continue to use the standard
  tracking flow and remain visible to all users with access
  to the employee chatter.
* Employee chatter message fetching is overridden to hide
  payroll-sensitive messages from users outside
  `group_hr_payroll_user`.
A test was also added to ensure payroll-sensitive tracking
messages remain hidden from non-payroll users.
Task: 4985543

Problem
------------------
When creating group allocations, when the allocation type is accrual and the start date is set in the past, the newly created allocations have the accrual amounts at 0. To reproduce:
1. Create an accrual plan with an easily measurable milestone (e.g. 1 day every day)
2. From the allocations view -> New Group Allocation
3. Enter the following values: Grant -> By Employee Employees -> select your employee Time Off Type -> Paid Time Off (doesn't matter too much) Allocation Type -> Based on Accrual Plan Validity Period -> any date a few days in the past (Personally I tested with 1/1/2025 and no end date) Allocation -> Keep at 0 Allocate Time Off
4. Go to the newly created allocation The allocation amount is 0.

Reason
----------------------
When creating group allocations, the `hr.leave.allocation.generate.multi.wizard` calls the `_process_accrual_plans()` method to compute the accruals, but when the allocations are created, the nextcall and lastcall fields are set, so the accruals are not computed and the scheduled action also does nothing until the nextcall date. The onchange method manually sets the nextcall date to False so the accruals are processed.

Solution
------------------
Created a method to get the fields that need to be set to calculate the initial accrual amounts from the start date, which is called both in the onchange and to batch write in the wizard before accrual plans are processed. The wizard checks the duration values before overwriting the number_of_days field, since user manually setting the amount should overwrite the calculations.

task-4938695

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

Current behavior before PR:

Desired behavior after PR is merged:




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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#267768
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265783

This commit will affect all certification modules for the POS (pos_blackbox_be, l10n_se_pos, l10n_de_pos_res_cert)

Inside the base `handleDecreaseLine` we match all the lines which have the same product_id and compute the new quantity based on those. At the end we create a new line with the decreased quantity. This method is called when `disallowLineQuantityChange()` returns `false`, so when either of `pos_blackbox_be`, `l10n_se_pos` or `l10_de_pos_res_cert` are installed.

The problem is that different combos will still have the same product_id and total_excluded_currency, so the
`current_saved_quantity` adds the other unrelated combos together and tries to remove from the total of all the combos with the same parent.

This commit will keep the decrease line for an order in the uiState. So instead of iterating over all the lines in the order and matching lines which have the same product_id we always keep track of the original line and the matching decrease line for that line.

Task-[6173236](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project/1737/tasks/6173236)
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262744

Issue
-----
Labels generated with DHL do not respect the template (dimensions) set on the
delivery method.

Steps to reproduce
-----
- Set up DHL
	- set label template as 6X4_A4_PDF
- Create a delivery using the method
- Validate the delivery

> The generated label is in 8x4 inch format instead of 6x4 full page

Explanation
-----
All info below was found in DHL's API doc from the following YAML file

https://developer.dhl.com/sites/default/files/2026-05/dpdhl-express-api-3.3.0.yaml

There are 2 issues with the current implementation regarding the label format.

1. The formats defined on the model (the `ProviderDHL` `delivery.carrier`) do not match the ones of the API. From the API, the accepted values are the following:

- ECOM26_84_A4_001
- ECOM26_84_001
- ECOM_TC_A4
- ECOM26_A6_002
- ECOM26_84CI_001
- ECOM26_84CI_002
- ECOM26_84CI_003
- ECOM_A4_RU_002
- ECOM26_84_LBBX_001
- ECOM26_64_LBBX_001

(values taken from the excerpt below)

```
templateName:
    description: >-
      Please enter DHL Express document template name.
      <BR>                Sample Transport label
      templates:<BR>                ECOM26_84_A4_001
      <BR>                ECOM26_84_001 - default<BR>
      ECOM_TC_A4<BR>                ECOM26_A6_002<BR>
      ECOM26_84CI_001<BR>                ECOM26_84CI_002 - supported
      single customer barcode<BR>                ECOM26_84CI_003 -
      to be used if customer barcodes are used<BR>
      ECOM_A4_RU_002<BR>
      ECOM26_84_LBBX_001 - supported for loose BBX shipment<BR>
      ECOM26_64_LBBX_001 - supported for loose BBX shipment<BR>
      [...]
    type: string
    maxLength: 25
    example: ECOM26_84_001
```

[...]: additional info unrelated to labels (useful only for other `typeCode` values)

Since `ProviderDHL` is a model, the `dhl_label_template` selection values cannot be changed and must thus be mapped to the corresponding API values.

- 8X4_A4_PDF => ECOM26_84_A4_001
- 8X4_thermal => ECOM26_84_001
- 8X4_A4_TC_PDF => ECOM_TC_A4
- 6X4_thermal => ECOM26_A6_002
- 6X4_A4_PDF => ECOM26_A6_002
- 8X4_CI_PDF => ECOM26_84CI_001
- 8X4_CI_thermal => ECOM26_84CI_001
- 8X4_RU_A4_PDF => ECOM_A4_RU_002
- 6X4_PDF => ECOM26_A6_002
- 8X4_PDF => ECOM26_84_001

Couple notes about this matching:
- There is no 6x4 in the API, so A6 is used instead (A6 is 105x148mm, 4x6 is   101.6x152.4mm so not a perfect match but the best option still)
- ECOM26_84_001 and ECOM26_A6_002 are used as default values for the respective   formats when there is no exact match possible (eg 6x4 only has one option in the API, the default one)
- "A4" is being ignored, because of point 2

2. There is a specific field to force the label to be in A4 format (according to the API, see excerpt below)

```
fitLabelsToA4:
  description: >-
    To print respective Transport Label and Waybill document into
    A4 margin PDF.<BR>                Note:
    ECOM26_A6_002,ECOM26_84CI_001,ECOM26_84CI_002,ARCH_6X4,ARCH_8X4
    template. <BR>                This option is applicable only
    for PDF encodingFormat selection.<BR>                false:
    Transport Label and Waybill document will use default margin
    settings (default behavior) <BR>                true:
    Transport Label and Waybill document will print into A4 margin
    PDF
  type: boolean
  example: false
```

-----
Ticket:
opw-6148713

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117281

To reproduce error.
1) make a new interview record
2) make sure user has interview group but not survey group 3) try to access/make an interview record.

convert_to_cache returns none when it is passed an empty list see link below:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b16aaff17a65987c958c3285157ef1e4443e864f/odoo/orm/fields_misc.py#L71

```
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.3/odoo/http/router.py", line 279, in __call__
    response = serve_db(request)
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.3/odoo/http/router.py", line 443, in serve_db
    raise _update_served_exception(request, exc)
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.3/odoo/http/router.py", line 441, in serve_db
    return retrying(serve_func, env=request.env)
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.3/odoo/http/retrying.py", line 52, in retrying
    result = func()
             ^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.3/odoo/http/router.py", line 593, in serve_ir_http
    response = request.dispatcher.dispatch(rule.endpoint, args)
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.3/odoo/http/dispatcher.py", line 311, in dispatch
    result = self.request.registry['ir.http']._dispatch(endpoint)
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.3/odoo/addons/base/models/ir_http.py", line 415, in _dispatch
    result = endpoint(**request.params)
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.3/odoo/http/routing_map.py", line 207, in route_wrapper
    result = endpoint(self, *args, **params_ok)
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.3/addons/web/controllers/dataset.py", line 32, in call_kw
    return call_kw(request.env[model], method, args, kwargs)
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.3/odoo/service/model.py", line 55, in call_kw
    result = method(recs, *args, **kwargs)
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.3/addons/web/models/models.py", line 2084, in onchange
    snapshot1 = RecordSnapshot(record, fields_spec)
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.3/addons/web/models/models.py", line 2170, in __init__
    self.fetch(name)
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.3/addons/web/models/models.py", line 2185, in fetch
    self[field_name] = self.record[field_name]
                       ~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.3/odoo/orm/models.py", line 6130, in __getitem__
    return self._fields[key].__get__(self)
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.3/odoo/orm/fields.py", line 1815, in __get__
    self.compute_value(recs)
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.3/odoo/orm/fields.py", line 1986, in compute_value
    records._compute_field_value(self)
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.3/addons/mail/models/mail_thread.py", line 502, in _compute_field_value
    return super()._compute_field_value(field)
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.3/odoo/orm/models.py", line 4340, in _compute_field_value
    determine(field.compute, self)
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.3/odoo/orm/fields.py", line 82, in determine
    return needle(*args)
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.3/addons/hr_recruitment_survey/models/survey_survey.py", line 19, in _compute_allowed_survey_types
    survey.allowed_survey_types = [*survey.allowed_survey_types, 'recruitment']
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
TypeError: Value after * must be an iterable, not bool

```

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

Current behavior before PR:

Desired behavior after PR is merged:




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

Applying stock quants validation was performing poorly due to multiple bottlenecks in `Picking._check_entire_pack` and `StockMoveLine._apply_putaway_strategy`:

* **Redundant updates** were performed on `location_dest_id` in the move lines and the package levels (which internally update all related move lines too), even when the location remained unchanged.
* The main loop inside `_check_entire_pack` was **O(N^2)** time relative to the number of move lines due to internal filtering logic.
* **Cache misses** triggered unnecessary SQL queries when retrieving `move_line_ids` from `package levels`, while they are already cached via the pickings and can be grouped by `package_level`.

---

### Benchmark
Benchmark conducted on a customer database with **400k** `stock_move_line` records within **800** `pickings`, testing performance of the action `StockQuant.action_validate` with different sizes of move lines. Each test was run multiple times and shown is the average mean, all with negligible variance.

| Metric | Before | After | Delta |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Benchmark (1k lines)** | 10.5s | 2.2s | -80% |
| **Benchmark (5k lines)** | 121s | 8.5s | -93% |
| **Benchmark (50k lines)** | 887s | 56s | -94% |
| **Benchmark (400k lines)** | timeout | 777s | (within time limit) |

**OPW-6045513**

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262717
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#257829

Steps to reproduce
1. Create a company with Egypt localization, currency EGP
2. On a bank journal, set Outstanding Receipt and Outstanding Payment accounts
3. Register a customer payment so the journal dashboard shows the Payments row with a negative amount
4. Switch the user language to Arabic
5. Open the Accounting dashboard

Issue
The Payments amount renders as "LE 5,000.00-" instead of "-5,000.00 LE". formatCurrency returns the string "-5,000.00 LE". In an Arabic page the leading "-" has no intrinsic direction, so the browser attaches it to the surrounding right-to-left Arabic text and visually moves it past the symbol. Sibling rows on the same dashboard render correctly because they already wrap the amount in dir="ltr", see
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/d0424f2ffcf99ee59befe288150f1643b3fa0112/addons/account/views/account_journal_dashboard_view.xml#L252

opw-6183749
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#267812
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#266742

**Steps to reproduce:**
* install `l10n_lu_reports`.
* Create a company in Luxembourg with a `company_registry` number set.
* Link this company to an accounting firm that is a natural person (independent accountant) with no business registration number — i.e. `l10n_lu_agent_rcs_number` is left empty on the agent partner.
* Go to the tax report and generate the XML declaration.

**Observed behavior:**
* The `<Agent><RCSNbr>` field in the generated XML contains the company's own `company_registry` value instead of `NE`.
* The file is rejected by the Luxembourg tax administration.

**Cause:**
* In `l10n_lu_generate_xml.py`, the `agent_rcs_number` template value was built with a plain `or` chain: `agent.l10n_lu_agent_rcs_number or company.company_registry or "NE"`
* When an agent is set but has no RCS number (natural person), the fallback incorrectly continued to `company.company_registry` instead of stopping at `"NE"`.

**Fix:**
* Use a conditional expression so that `company.company_registry` is only used as a fallback when **no agent is linked** to the company: `(agent.l10n_lu_agent_rcs_number if agent else company.company_registry) or "NE"`

opw-6044689

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#112968

### 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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#267708
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264063

This commit will affect all certification modules for the POS (pos_blackbox_be, l10n_se_pos, l10n_de_pos_res_cert)

Inside the base `handleDecreaseLine` we match all the lines which have the same product_id and compute the new quantity based on those. At the end we create a new line with the decreased quantity. This method is called when `disallowLineQuantityChange()` returns `false`, so when either of `pos_blackbox_be`, `l10n_se_pos` or `l10_de_pos_res_cert` are installed.

The problem is that different combos will still have the same product_id and total_excluded_currency, so the
`current_saved_quantity` adds the other unrelated combos together and tries to remove from the total of all the combos with the same parent.

This commit will keep the decrease line for an order in the uiState. So instead of iterating over all the lines in the order and matching lines which have the same product_id we always keep track of the original line and the matching decrease line for that line.

Task-[6173236](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project/1737/tasks/6173236)
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262744

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

Issue
-----
Labels generated with DHL do not respect the template (dimensions) set on the
delivery method.

Steps to reproduce
-----
- Set up DHL
	- set label template as 6X4_A4_PDF
- Create a delivery using the method
- Validate the delivery

> The generated label is in 8x4 inch format instead of 6x4 full page

Explanation
-----
All info below was found in DHL's API doc from the following YAML file

https://developer.dhl.com/sites/default/files/2026-05/dpdhl-express-api-3.3.0.yaml

There are 2 issues with the current implementation regarding the label format.

1. The formats defined on the model (the `ProviderDHL` `delivery.carrier`) do not match the ones of the API. From the API, the accepted values are the following:

- ECOM26_84_A4_001
- ECOM26_84_001
- ECOM_TC_A4
- ECOM26_A6_002
- ECOM26_84CI_001
- ECOM26_84CI_002
- ECOM26_84CI_003
- ECOM_A4_RU_002
- ECOM26_84_LBBX_001
- ECOM26_64_LBBX_001

(values taken from the excerpt below)

```
templateName:
    description: >-
      Please enter DHL Express document template name.
      <BR>                Sample Transport label
      templates:<BR>                ECOM26_84_A4_001
      <BR>                ECOM26_84_001 - default<BR>
      ECOM_TC_A4<BR>                ECOM26_A6_002<BR>
      ECOM26_84CI_001<BR>                ECOM26_84CI_002 - supported
      single customer barcode<BR>                ECOM26_84CI_003 -
      to be used if customer barcodes are used<BR>
      ECOM_A4_RU_002<BR>
      ECOM26_84_LBBX_001 - supported for loose BBX shipment<BR>
      ECOM26_64_LBBX_001 - supported for loose BBX shipment<BR>
      [...]
    type: string
    maxLength: 25
    example: ECOM26_84_001
```

[...]: additional info unrelated to labels (useful only for other `typeCode` values)

Since `ProviderDHL` is a model, the `dhl_label_template` selection values cannot be changed and must thus be mapped to the corresponding API values.

- 8X4_A4_PDF => ECOM26_84_A4_001
- 8X4_thermal => ECOM26_84_001
- 8X4_A4_TC_PDF => ECOM_TC_A4
- 6X4_thermal => ECOM26_A6_002
- 6X4_A4_PDF => ECOM26_A6_002
- 8X4_CI_PDF => ECOM26_84CI_001
- 8X4_CI_thermal => ECOM26_84CI_001
- 8X4_RU_A4_PDF => ECOM_A4_RU_002
- 6X4_PDF => ECOM26_A6_002
- 8X4_PDF => ECOM26_84_001

Couple notes about this matching:
- There is no 6x4 in the API, so A6 is used instead (A6 is 105x148mm, 4x6 is   101.6x152.4mm so not a perfect match but the best option still)
- ECOM26_84_001 and ECOM26_A6_002 are used as default values for the respective   formats when there is no exact match possible (eg 6x4 only has one option in the API, the default one)
- "A4" is being ignored, because of point 2

2. There is a specific field to force the label to be in A4 format (according to the API, see excerpt below)

```
fitLabelsToA4:
  description: >-
    To print respective Transport Label and Waybill document into
    A4 margin PDF.<BR>                Note:
    ECOM26_A6_002,ECOM26_84CI_001,ECOM26_84CI_002,ARCH_6X4,ARCH_8X4
    template. <BR>                This option is applicable only
    for PDF encodingFormat selection.<BR>                false:
    Transport Label and Waybill document will use default margin
    settings (default behavior) <BR>                true:
    Transport Label and Waybill document will print into A4 margin
    PDF
  type: boolean
  example: false
```

-----
Ticket:
opw-6148713

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117281

Steps to reproduce:
- Activate Anglo-Saxon accounting
- Create a product with track inventory and an automated inventory valuation product category
- Define MTO on the product
- Add this product to an Analytic Distribution Model (i.e. Legal)

- Create a SO for this product
- Create and confirm the PO related to it, the Analytic account is set on the PO.
- Confirm the reception of the product
- This creates a Stock valuation layer with the Analytic account
- Confirm the SO
- Confirm the delivery of the product
- This creates a Stock valuation layer with the Analytic account too
- Create the Invoice

Issue:
Missing analytic account on the 110300 Stock Interim (Delivered) creating unabalanced analytic accounting

Other:
test_report_invoice_items_anglo_saxon_automatic_valuation
introduced in this PR https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/205777
checks that in a project's analytic report, the values based
on cogs lines are displayed in the cost section.
With this fix, both cogs lines will have an analytic account
so their impact on the project analytic report will even out.
This made the test fail.
To keep the benefit of this test, we simulate that the user manually
removes the analytic account on some of the cogs lines
(those targetting stock interim received).
The test was removed by https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/236971
from 19.2 onward


opw-6060567

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#266617
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#261798

Applying stock quants validation was performing poorly due to multiple bottlenecks in `Picking._check_entire_pack` and `StockMoveLine._apply_putaway_strategy`:

* **Redundant updates** were performed on `location_dest_id` in the move lines and the package levels (which internally update all related move lines too), even when the location remained unchanged.
* The main loop inside `_check_entire_pack` was **O(N^2)** time relative to the number of move lines due to internal filtering logic.
* **Cache misses** triggered unnecessary SQL queries when retrieving `move_line_ids` from `package levels`, while they are already cached via the pickings and can be grouped by `package_level`.

---

### Benchmark
Benchmark conducted on a customer database with **400k** `stock_move_line` records within **800** `pickings`, testing performance of the action `StockQuant.action_validate` with different sizes of move lines. Each test was run multiple times and shown is the average mean, all with negligible variance.

| Metric | Before | After | Delta |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Benchmark (1k lines)** | 10.5s | 2.2s | -80% |
| **Benchmark (5k lines)** | 121s | 8.5s | -93% |
| **Benchmark (50k lines)** | 887s | 56s | -94% |
| **Benchmark (400k lines)** | timeout | 777s | (within time limit) |

**OPW-6045513**

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262717
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#257829

### 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

**Steps to reproduce:**
* install `l10n_lu_reports`.
* Create a company in Luxembourg with a `company_registry` number set.
* Link this company to an accounting firm that is a natural person (independent accountant) with no business registration number — i.e. `l10n_lu_agent_rcs_number` is left empty on the agent partner.
* Go to the tax report and generate the XML declaration.

**Observed behavior:**
* The `<Agent><RCSNbr>` field in the generated XML contains the company's own `company_registry` value instead of `NE`.
* The file is rejected by the Luxembourg tax administration.

**Cause:**
* In `l10n_lu_generate_xml.py`, the `agent_rcs_number` template value was built with a plain `or` chain: `agent.l10n_lu_agent_rcs_number or company.company_registry or "NE"`
* When an agent is set but has no RCS number (natural person), the fallback incorrectly continued to `company.company_registry` instead of stopping at `"NE"`.

**Fix:**
* Use a conditional expression so that `company.company_registry` is only used as a fallback when **no agent is linked** to the company: `(agent.l10n_lu_agent_rcs_number if agent else company.company_registry) or "NE"`

opw-6044689

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#112968

Why this commit:
---

There are two instances in version 17.0 where dates use toLocaleString(), which relies on the device's local format instead of the Odoo-configured format.

Since Odoo already defines a standard date format, all toLocaleString() usages in pos should be replaced to ensure consistency.

Starting from version 17.0, cash in/out receipts and the sales report use the local device time format.

This commit updates those references and aligns them with the Odoo-configured date format. 
During forwardporting the fix in version 19.0 needs to be added to [base.js](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0352c5e8543b75083cf555c3d5b4f164f949b465/addons/point_of_sale/static/src/app/models/related_models/base.js#L64-L69).
As formatDateOrTime function is used in the [reciept header](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0352c5e8543b75083cf555c3d5b4f164f949b465/addons/point_of_sale/static/src/app/screens/receipt_screen/receipt/receipt_header/receipt_header.xml#L13) printing date on all reciepts. 

After this commit:
---

<img width="947" height="982" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/2d9e4199-75dd-40ea-aeb1-27401c9022f3" />


All date references consistently use the Odoo-configured date format.

OPW: 6087341





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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#266770
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#259112

**Steps to Reproduce**

1. Install the **Live Chat** module in version 18.4 or above.
2. Go to: **Settings → Users**
   * Open your user and change the access rights from **Live Chat / Administrator** to **Live Chat / User**.
   * Alternatively, create a new user giving him rights of the **Live Chat / User** group.
3. Login using the Live Chat user.
4. Open the **Live Chat** application and navigate to: **Live Chat → Sessions**
5. Open any existing session. The session and its messages are accessible without any issue.
6. In the search bar, click: **Filters → Custom Filter**
7. Select the field `Chatbot Messages (chatbot_message_ids)`. You will face the below traceback.

**Issue Description:**
The issue happens because `discuss.channel` records are accessible to users having the `im_livechat_group_user` group through the Sessions menu: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/459a775a066fe1465e53fc751045baed39f80118/addons/im_livechat/views/im_livechat_channel_views.xml#L310-L315

The field `chatbot_message_ids` is defined as:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/459a775a066fe1465e53fc751045baed39f80118/addons/im_livechat/models/discuss_channel.py#L165

This field points to the `chatbot.message` model, but access to that model is restricted to `im_livechat_group_manager` only:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/459a775a066fe1465e53fc751045baed39f80118/addons/im_livechat/security/ir.model.access.csv#L15

As a result, when a Live Chat user tries to use `chatbot_message_ids` in a custom filter, Odoo attempts to read `chatbot.message` records and raises an `AccessError`.

This issue started happening after the access rights changes introduced in pr : https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/201880

Specifically, the following ACL changes:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/201880/changes#diff-c1592d633a34db44a7cc2a527482cecc56127cbba72649e7318dcf63ccf477afR19-R20

**Solution:**
To fix this issue, added the group `im_livechat_group_manager` on the field `chatbot_message_ids` so only those user can access the field who belong to the group.

**Traceback:**

```.py
odoo.exceptions.AccessError: You are not allowed to access
'Chatbot Message' (chatbot.message) records.

This operation is allowed for the following groups:
        - Live Chat/Administrator

Contact your administrator to request access if necessary.
```

opw - [6169395]
upg - [4274573]



Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

Current behavior before PR:

Desired behavior after PR is merged:

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264682

### 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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#267708
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264063

This commit will affect all certification modules for the POS (pos_blackbox_be, l10n_se_pos, l10n_de_pos_res_cert)

Inside the base `handleDecreaseLine` we match all the lines which have the same product_id and compute the new quantity based on those. At the end we create a new line with the decreased quantity. This method is called when `disallowLineQuantityChange()` returns `false`, so when either of `pos_blackbox_be`, `l10n_se_pos` or `l10_de_pos_res_cert` are installed.

The problem is that different combos will still have the same product_id and total_excluded_currency, so the
`current_saved_quantity` adds the other unrelated combos together and tries to remove from the total of all the combos with the same parent.

This commit will keep the decrease line for an order in the uiState. So instead of iterating over all the lines in the order and matching lines which have the same product_id we always keep track of the original line and the matching decrease line for that line.

Task-[6173236](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project/1737/tasks/6173236)
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262744

When the cogs are computed using the Stock Moves values, we would not differentiate between deliveries and returns, taking both in the cogs value computation. This meant that when doing multiple deliveries with returns before posting the invoice, if the deliveries/returns had different cost, the COGS would be an average of all of them. Example: Delivery $10 -> Return $10 -> Delivery $20  ==>  COGS $13.33

## HOW TO REPRODUCE
- Create Product FIFO Perpetual, cost=10, onHand=1
- Create Sale order for 1 unit
- Deliver and return
- Change cost from 10 to 20:
  - Set on hand to 0
  - Change product cost to 20
  - Set on hand to 1
- Duplicate SO delivery and validate
- Create and Post Invoice => COGS == 13.33


## FIX EXPLANATION

Returns / Refunds are counted negatively.
So when we compute the moves value, instead of doing `(10 + 10 + 20) / (1 + 1 + 1)`, we do `(10 - 10 + 20) / (1 - 1 + 1)`.
We need to propagate this logic to the cogs quantity, so that we don't believe that we invoiced 3 units while only 1 (1-1+1) was delivered.

---

Note:
For the update in test `test_fifo_delivered_invoice_post_delivery_with_return`, I put back the original values modified by 5978bc5dc683d317f4ab87f6c9c9d843568bf4ea

---

<img width="1852" height="363" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/ea9f16b2-a818-4c21-b3c3-aa296792f477" />
<img width="1203" height="787" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/7348d15a-b840-4ee0-b1da-2b954cdb3d5e" />

---

## Test result without fix:
```
2026-05-28 11:57:45,899 36667 INFO oes_test_19.0 odoo.addons.sale_stock.tests.test_anglo_saxon_valuation: Starting TestAngloSaxonValuation.test_fifo_invoice_with_delivery_with_return ... 
2026-05-28 11:57:47,138 36667 INFO oes_test_19.0 odoo.addons.sale_stock.tests.test_anglo_saxon_valuation: ====================================================================== 
2026-05-28 11:57:47,138 36667 ERROR oes_test_19.0 odoo.addons.sale_stock.tests.test_anglo_saxon_valuation: FAIL: TestAngloSaxonValuation.test_fifo_invoice_with_delivery_with_return
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/odoo/Odoo/src/19.0/odoo/addons/sale_stock/tests/test_anglo_saxon_valuation.py", line 1099, in test_fifo_invoice_with_delivery_with_return
    self.assertRecordValues(invoice.line_ids, [
  File "/home/odoo/Odoo/src/19.0/odoo/odoo/tests/common.py", line 727, in assertRecordValues
    self.assertSequenceEqual(expected_reformatted, record_reformatted, seq_type=list)
AssertionError: Lists differ: [{'ac[22 chars]t': 0, 'credit': 50}, {'account_id': 9141, 'de[114 chars]: 0}] != [{'ac[22 chars]t': 0.0, 'credit': 50.0}, {'account_id': 9141,[132 chars]0.0}]

First differing element 2:
{'account_id': 9138, 'debit': 0, 'credit': 20}
{'account_id': 9138, 'debit': 0.0, 'credit': 13.33}

- [{'account_id': 9162, 'credit': 50, 'debit': 0},
+ [{'account_id': 9162, 'credit': 50.0, 'debit': 0.0},
?                                   ++           ++
-  {'account_id': 9141, 'credit': 0, 'debit': 50},
+  {'account_id': 9141, 'credit': 0.0, 'debit': 50.0},
?                                 ++             ++
-  {'account_id': 9138, 'credit': 20, 'debit': 0},
?                                 ^^
+  {'account_id': 9138, 'credit': 13.33, 'debit': 0.0},
?                                 ^^^^^           ++
-  {'account_id': 9168, 'credit': 0, 'debit': 20}]
?                                             ^^
+  {'account_id': 9168, 'credit': 0.0, 'debit': 13.33}]
?                                 ++            ^^^^^

```

---

OPW-6213321

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#266917

Issue
-----
Labels generated with DHL do not respect the template (dimensions) set on the
delivery method.

Steps to reproduce
-----
- Set up DHL
	- set label template as 6X4_A4_PDF
- Create a delivery using the method
- Validate the delivery

> The generated label is in 8x4 inch format instead of 6x4 full page

Explanation
-----
All info below was found in DHL's API doc from the following YAML file

https://developer.dhl.com/sites/default/files/2026-05/dpdhl-express-api-3.3.0.yaml

There are 2 issues with the current implementation regarding the label format.

1. The formats defined on the model (the `ProviderDHL` `delivery.carrier`) do not match the ones of the API. From the API, the accepted values are the following:

- ECOM26_84_A4_001
- ECOM26_84_001
- ECOM_TC_A4
- ECOM26_A6_002
- ECOM26_84CI_001
- ECOM26_84CI_002
- ECOM26_84CI_003
- ECOM_A4_RU_002
- ECOM26_84_LBBX_001
- ECOM26_64_LBBX_001

(values taken from the excerpt below)

```
templateName:
    description: >-
      Please enter DHL Express document template name.
      <BR>                Sample Transport label
      templates:<BR>                ECOM26_84_A4_001
      <BR>                ECOM26_84_001 - default<BR>
      ECOM_TC_A4<BR>                ECOM26_A6_002<BR>
      ECOM26_84CI_001<BR>                ECOM26_84CI_002 - supported
      single customer barcode<BR>                ECOM26_84CI_003 -
      to be used if customer barcodes are used<BR>
      ECOM_A4_RU_002<BR>
      ECOM26_84_LBBX_001 - supported for loose BBX shipment<BR>
      ECOM26_64_LBBX_001 - supported for loose BBX shipment<BR>
      [...]
    type: string
    maxLength: 25
    example: ECOM26_84_001
```

[...]: additional info unrelated to labels (useful only for other `typeCode` values)

Since `ProviderDHL` is a model, the `dhl_label_template` selection values cannot be changed and must thus be mapped to the corresponding API values.

- 8X4_A4_PDF => ECOM26_84_A4_001
- 8X4_thermal => ECOM26_84_001
- 8X4_A4_TC_PDF => ECOM_TC_A4
- 6X4_thermal => ECOM26_A6_002
- 6X4_A4_PDF => ECOM26_A6_002
- 8X4_CI_PDF => ECOM26_84CI_001
- 8X4_CI_thermal => ECOM26_84CI_001
- 8X4_RU_A4_PDF => ECOM_A4_RU_002
- 6X4_PDF => ECOM26_A6_002
- 8X4_PDF => ECOM26_84_001

Couple notes about this matching:
- There is no 6x4 in the API, so A6 is used instead (A6 is 105x148mm, 4x6 is   101.6x152.4mm so not a perfect match but the best option still)
- ECOM26_84_001 and ECOM26_A6_002 are used as default values for the respective   formats when there is no exact match possible (eg 6x4 only has one option in the API, the default one)
- "A4" is being ignored, because of point 2

2. There is a specific field to force the label to be in A4 format (according to the API, see excerpt below)

```
fitLabelsToA4:
  description: >-
    To print respective Transport Label and Waybill document into
    A4 margin PDF.<BR>                Note:
    ECOM26_A6_002,ECOM26_84CI_001,ECOM26_84CI_002,ARCH_6X4,ARCH_8X4
    template. <BR>                This option is applicable only
    for PDF encodingFormat selection.<BR>                false:
    Transport Label and Waybill document will use default margin
    settings (default behavior) <BR>                true:
    Transport Label and Waybill document will print into A4 margin
    PDF
  type: boolean
  example: false
```

-----
Ticket:
opw-6148713

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117281

Applying stock quants validation was performing poorly due to multiple bottlenecks in `Picking._check_entire_pack` and `StockMoveLine._apply_putaway_strategy`:

* **Redundant updates** were performed on `location_dest_id` in the move lines and the package levels (which internally update all related move lines too), even when the location remained unchanged.
* The main loop inside `_check_entire_pack` was **O(N^2)** time relative to the number of move lines due to internal filtering logic.
* **Cache misses** triggered unnecessary SQL queries when retrieving `move_line_ids` from `package levels`, while they are already cached via the pickings and can be grouped by `package_level`.

---

### Benchmark
Benchmark conducted on a customer database with **400k** `stock_move_line` records within **800** `pickings`, testing performance of the action `StockQuant.action_validate` with different sizes of move lines. Each test was run multiple times and shown is the average mean, all with negligible variance.

| Metric | Before | After | Delta |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Benchmark (1k lines)** | 10.5s | 2.2s | -80% |
| **Benchmark (5k lines)** | 121s | 8.5s | -93% |
| **Benchmark (50k lines)** | 887s | 56s | -94% |
| **Benchmark (400k lines)** | timeout | 777s | (within time limit) |

**OPW-6045513**

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262717
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#257829

Currently when user adds adds quantity in barcode using lots it leads to incorrect sale order quantities.

## Steps to replicate:
- Install Sales and Barcode (no demo data).
- Enable Lots & Serial Numbers in settings.
- Create Test Product with Tracking by Lots.
- Go to Inventory > Products>Lots & Serial Numbers and create 3 lots for the product.
- Update each lot’s on-hand quantity to 10 from the product page.
- Create and confirm a Sales Order for the product (lines: qty 3 and 2 units).
- Open the delivery in the Barcode app:
   - Scan lot 2 > increase qty to 3 using +1 button
   - Scan lot 3 > increase qty to 2 using +1 button
- Validate and go to the sale order.

## Observed Behavior:
The sale order delivered quantities are flipped and a backorder is created even though the quantity for the product is satisfied.

## Root cause:
The issue occurs because when a sales order is confirmed, the system defaults to
 using lot 1 on the delivery receipt. When a user scans lot 2, the `_processBarcode` function is triggered, which calls `_findLine` at [1] to select the appropriate line on the receipt.

As the loop in `_findLine` iterates through `pageLines` with values like: 
```
[{display_name: "Test product", quantity: 3, lot_id: { name: 'lot1' }}, 
{display_name: "Test product", quantity: 2, lot_id: { name: 'lot1' }}]
```

During the first iteration, `foundLine` is set at [2] for the line with quantity 3 . Since the subsequent if condition is not satisfied, the loop hits the continue block at [3].
On the next iteration, the line with quantity 2 causes `foundLine` to be overwritten at [2], and the continue block is executed again at [3].

This results in the line with quantity 2 being selected as the line to update at the end of the function.

When the user manually increases the quantity to 3, the line that originally required quantity 2 is updated and fulfilled.
Later, when lot 3 is scanned, the line that required quantity 3 is selected for update, and manually increasing the quantity to 2 before validating the order leads to a backorder and causes the delivered quantities to be flipped.

[1]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/81eaeb4b18d849c644160234def6c69013591abe/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L1335-L1337 [2]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/81eaeb4b18d849c644160234def6c69013591abe/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L1690-L1699 [3]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/81eaeb4b18d849c644160234def6c69013591abe/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L1727-L1729

## Solution:
Avoid grouping lines from different moves unless using batch transfers. This ensures that backorders are not created when the barcode lines are fulfilled.

opw-5423943

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118085
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#109032

Issue:
After manually modifying the taxes on a vendor bill that generates COGS lines, confirming the vendor bill causes the taxes to revert to their original values before the manual edit. This happens because the product’s purchase taxes are applied to the generated COGS lines, which triggers the tax recomputation logic and overwrites the manually adjusted tax amounts. However, COGS lines represent internal operations and should not have taxes applied to them

Steps to reproduce:
1. Turn on Anglo-Saxon accounting
2. Turn on automatic accounting
3. Make a FIFO product category and make the valuation automatic
4. Make a new product and set the FIFO product category on it
5. Make sure the product has a vendor tax set
6. Make a purchase order for 10 of the FIFO product category at $10
7. Create and validate the receipt for 10
8. Make a sales order for 6 of the FIFO product category at $10
9. Create and validate the delivery for 6
10. Create the vendor bill for 10 the purchase order created above (make sure that there is a tax set on the vendor bill; the vendor tax that was set on the product). Make this vendor bill set for 10 at $20
11. Edit the tax at the bottom of the total
12. Confirm the vendor bill
13. Notice that the tax at the bottom of the total changes
14. Reset the vendor bill
15. Remove the purchase tax from the product
16. Confirm the vendor bill again and notice that the tax at the bottom of the total does not change this time

Cause:
On confirmation, the COGS lines on the vendor bill will be generated and “_compute_tax_ids” will be triggered on those lines. Since COGS lines have a “product_id” set on them, those lines will receive the purchase tax set on the product. Setting the “tax_ids” on those COGS lines will cause tax computation to trigger again, which will reset the manually edited tax amount to the new computed amount. However, since COGS lines come in pairs that are equal and opposite in amount, the taxes from both COGS lines will cancel out, and the new computed tax amount does not change

Solution:
Skip setting the purchase taxes of the product onto COGS lines in “_compute_tax_ids”

opw-6110692

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#267957
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265352

Currently, when a user deletes a line and validates internal movement in the barcode system, the system allows validation even though specifying the destination location after each scan is required.

## Steps to produce:
- Install the Inventory module
- Go to Settings and enable Storage Locations.
- Inventory > Configuration > Operation Types > Internal Transfers > Barcode App
- Configure the Destination Location to require scanning after each product.
- Create an Internal Transfer for Pedal Bin, demand 1.
- Mark the transfer as To Do and open it in the Barcode app.
- Add quantity using +1, then scan the barcode for the Pedal Bin(Barcode: 6016478556493).
- Delete the newly added line and attempt to Validate.

## Observed Behavior:
The system should prevent transfer validation when the destination location has not been scanned and display a notification to the user, similar to the behavior before user deleted the newly added line.

## Root cause:
This issue occurs because when the delete button is pressed, the deleteLine function [1] removes the line, but the deleted line becomes the selected line due to [2] being triggered before the UI updates.

As a result, the selected line is now undefined. Since the selected line is undefined, it fails to meet the condition at [3] during validation. This prevents notifications from being triggered and allows the transfer to be validated before the destination location has been scanned.
[1]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/3476d15bf8e75eb6530658dd623861b60963ab40/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L826-L836 [2] :
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/327d4478128f33fb2e0c477533bd4983178abf17/stock_barcode/static/src/components/line.js#L129-L133 [3]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/6ff158ca3a6d2d2b3d285a7f8317622844811688/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_picking_model.js#L945-L948

## Solution:
We can prevent users from validating if any line has an unscanned destination location when destination-location scanning is mandatory after scanning each product.

To enforce this behavior, we can track whether a line has been modified and whether a destination location has been scanned and applied to that line. This allows us to identify which lines still require destination location scanning before validation can proceed.

However, line state information is currently discarded and recreated on every save. As a result, information about lines that were updated and already had their destination location scanned is lost. This may incorrectly require users to rescan the destination location, even though it was previously scanned.

To address this, we preserve the destination-scanned and modified state by carrying it forward from existing lines to their corresponding newly created versions using a loop. This ensures that destination location scan status is retained and users are not asked to rescan unnecessarily.

opw-6069614

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#113618

**Steps to reproduce**
- Have user A with Sign admin rights and user B without Sign rights.
- With user A, create a sign request activity on a record that user B can access. Send the signature request.
- With user B, try to access the record. -> AccessError when trying to fetch the chatter.

**Cause**
By default, users get access to all the activities associated to records they have access to (see `_search` of `mail.activity`). This is an issue since some of the fields added in `_store_activity_fields` for the sign request activity display might not be accessible for a user with access to the activity.

**Change**
Use `sudo` to be able to display the activity, even if the user doesn't have access to the sign request.
Also, in that case, `can_write` should be `False` in order to hide the action buttons of the activity, which trigger access errors when trying to make operations on the sign request.

Another related change is to create the activity for the user creating the sign request, this avoids falling back on the `user_id` of the record associated with the activity and makes sure the activity's user has access to the sign request.

opw-6157455

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118555
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#116540

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

…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

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

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118033

Currently an error is generated when the user tries to cancel a
draft POS order as follows:

- Install the `pos_enterprise` module with demo data
- Open the register of `Furniture store` and select any product
- Click on the `Upload` icon to save the draft order and go to the backend.
- Navigate Orders > Orders > open Draft order
- Click the `cog` icon and click `Cancel Order` >>> Error occurs

This issue is caused by the recent refactor introduced in [1]. The
`action_pos_order_cancel` action now returns the `order`
(`pos.order` recordset) instead of default returning `None`.

As a result, the `action` variable contains a `pos.order` recordset, and
an error is raised at line [2] when `setdefault` is called on it, since
`setdefault` expects a dictionary-like object.

This commit fixes the above issue by removing the code that returns the
`pos.order` object from the action. As a result, the action now behaves
as expected and returns the default value (`None`).


[1]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/27f57036a1d0468efe6e68d7aceafe0f01b21f93
[2]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/48f93ca056633bd5cba36b66ee1008fb57ca666c/addons/web/controllers/utils.py#L24

Sentry-7354160052

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118035

[FIX] ai: scope AI_ADJUST_SEARCH bus event to originating session
The AI_ADJUST_SEARCH handler did not check aiSessionIdentifier, so any
browser tab subscribed to the bus would apply the AI's resulting search
to its current view. When the view's model lacked a field referenced in
the response (e.g. an "Active or Queue" filter on stage_id leaking from
a project.task chat into a timesheet view), the view raised a KeyError.
Align it with the four AI_OPEN_MENU_* handlers, which already drop events
from other sessions since https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/d85e17d9ccf70f9cfd51c7d6b2a5b52510807484.

Steps to reproduce:
- Run Odoo with the crm and contacts modules installed
- Open two tabs:
    - Tab 1: navigate to CRM and ensure you are in List view
    - Tab 2: navigate to Contacts and ensure you are also in List view
- In Tab 1 (CRM), open the Ask AI chat and type "Switch to Kanban view"
- CRM switches to Kanban view as expected
- Bug: Tab 2 (Contacts) also switches to Kanban view along with Tab 1,
  even though you did not interact with it

### Issue
When generating the attached document (AttachedDocument) for Colombia, the parent document reference tag <cbc:ID> incorrectly exported a generic line counter instead of the actual document identification number

While the DIAN platform itself accepted the file, this caused rejections in external validation tools and third-party software because they could not resolve the link back to the original invoice

DIAN Documentation: https://www.dian.gov.co/impuestos/factura-electronica/Documents/Anexo_tecnico_factura_electronica_vr_1_7_2020.pdf
On page 213 there is an example for ParentDocumentLineReference
On page 216 there is the specification that does not show any check

Example of the incorrect XML structure:
```xml
<cac:ParentDocumentLineReference>
    <cbc:LineID>1</cbc:LineID>
    <cac:DocumentReference>
        <cbc:ID>1</cbc:ID>
    </cac:DocumentReference>
</cac:ParentDocumentLineReference>
```

Expected XML structure:
```xml
<cac:ParentDocumentLineReference>
    <cbc:LineID>1</cbc:LineID>
    <cac:DocumentReference>
        <cbc:ID>SETP990001021</cbc:ID>
    </cac:DocumentReference>
</cac:ParentDocumentLineReference>
```

### Cause
In the template, the value for <cbc:ID> was retrieved using `parent_document.get('id')` which fetched the sequential loop index https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/cd25713fd2c35737d98db29df72b2d07ae9146e8/l10n_co_dian/views/templates.xml#L272-L275
The dictionary parsing logic did not extract the true document identifier from the XML tree response or the original XML data https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/13dc30679e382df5845993c880a97df600c39ed4/l10n_co_dian/models/l10n_co_dian_document.py#L429-L432

### Steps to reproduce
- Install `l10n_co_dian`
- Setup DIAN configuration
- Generate an attached document for a commercial event or invoice
- Open the generated XML file
Before the fix, the `<cac:ParentDocumentLineReference>/<cac:DocumentReference>/<cbc:ID>` tag contains a technical integer like "1" instead of the official document sequence number

opw-6164321

Issue:
----------------------------------------
When in a negative timezone, the "Out of Office until..." text in discuss shows the day before.

Steps to reproduce:
----------------------------------------
- Change the timezone of the user to "America/Toronto" for example
- Have an employee currently on leave until tomorrow
- Open discuss to chat with this employee
- The "Out of Office until..." shows today's date

Cause:
----------------------------------------
When calling `toLocaleString()` without a timezone specified in the options, the date is converted to local time (in the browser's timezone).

Here `persona.out_of_office_date_end` is just a date, `deserializeDateTime()` converts it to a timestamp, so the same day at 0am. Then if the timezone is negative, the timestamp becomes an hour the previous day when calling `toLocaleString()`. The format we give `DateTime.DATE_MED` doesn't include hours, so we just display the previous date.

Solution:
----------------------------------------
Add `timeZone:"UTC"` in the options to avoid the timezone conversion.

opw-6252040

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#267479