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).


opw-6060567

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#267810
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#261798

Currently, an error occurs when the user clicks on the translate button.

**Steps to Reproduce:**

 - Install the `CRM` module.
 - Go to `settings` and in `Languages` add 1 more language.
 - Go to `CRM` > `Configuration` > `Pipeline` > `Tags`.
 - Click `New` and, in the `Name` field click the `translate button` on the right.

**Behavior in 18.0**

When the tag name is not set, the translation dialog opens immediately. If a tag name is entered, 
the translation dialog shows the translated value on the second click.

**Behavior in saas-19.1**

`AssertionError: Invalid falsy real id`

Error:
After this [recent commit], when the user clicks on the translate button, if the record has a 
root record, the root record is saved before opening the translation dialog. However, in the 
case of an editable DynamicList view, the record does not have a root record so saving 
the record returns a promise instead of the resolved value [1].
Because of this promise, the condition fails [2], and the translation dialog is opened with a 
falsy ID since the record is not yet saved [3]. 
In saas-19.1, this issue raises Invalid falsy real id error after [this commit](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/4290724a4c8c57fba4f4d3d688d38f65dadcc38f).

This commit ensures that await is used so the resolved value is returned after the record is 
saved before opening the translation dialog.

[recent commit]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/5245ec39a12e7d3a10fcc4c2c92b0f7dbf52d3be

[1]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/9e3fc9568fcebcb1de6486d2ab7134e8a12087b7/addons/web/static/src/views/fields/translation_button.js#L23

[2]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/9e3fc9568fcebcb1de6486d2ab7134e8a12087b7/addons/web/static/src/views/fields/translation_button.js#L24-L26

[3]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/9e3fc9568fcebcb1de6486d2ab7134e8a12087b7/addons/web/static/src/views/fields/translation_button.js#L29-L41

sentry-7384270487

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#267914

### 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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118319

Sending the final invoice of a sale order to ZATCA crashed with `ValueError: Expected singleton: account.move(a, b)` when the sale order had multiple down-payment references.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Configure a SA company and setup ZATCA
2. Create a sale order and confirm it
3. Deliver the product line.
3. From the sale order, create a down-payment invoice (fixed amount, e.g. 115) and post it (DP1).
4. On DP1, click "Credit Note" and choose "Full refund and new draft invoice"; validate. DP1 becomes `reversed` and a new draft down-payment DP2 is created. Post DP2.
5. From the sale order, create the final regular invoice and post it.
6. Send the final invoice to ZATCA (or generate its XML) -> `ValueError: Expected singleton: account.move(a, b)`.

Root cause: _l10n_sa_get_line_prepayment_vals looks up the related down-payment move through the down-payment sale order line shared with the product line. The filter matched any out_invoice with _is_downpayment() == True, so the reversed DP1 and the active DP2 both ended up in the recordset, and reading .name raised the singleton error.

Prefer non-reversed down-payment moves when available, but fall back to reversed ones if no alternative exists (e.g.
when generating a credit note of the final invoice after the original down-payment was itself reversed).

opw-6116265

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264435
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#259384

Currently, if you refund an order made on the customer account with the customer account as well, you can still see the order in the list of orders to settle.

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
* Open shop
* Make an order using the customer account for a customer, don't invoice it
* Refund one of the order using the customer account, don't invoice it
* Make a new order using the customer account
* In the customer list, find the customer used and select "Settle Orders"
> The 2 orders are present in the list

Why the fix:
------------
Originally the list would only show the orders for chich the customers have due (>0).
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/bf4b6043b999b4a081b1afa73fc4113bf4db28f8

But recently the code we also see the refunds in the list as well.
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/12af23d5382e972facfaa999e4c5ab30c97e8d1f

However this new behavior is not visible if, with the refund, the customer account temporarily falls to 0.

So currently we have some refunds that impact the amount to settle and some that don't. Originally we were thinking that either we should show all refunds in that list (given they use the customer account) or we shouldn't show any as it was previously. Both solutions are not ideal.
* Showing them all would get the list bigger than it is and would require the customer to select the order and its refund(s) and settle them together. Since refunds are not usually done right after the order they would not be close it that list. However this solution would enable the option to remove the orders from the list requiring a few step from the customer.
* Showing none isn't idea either with this use case as it means that we still see orders that were cancelled out by their refunds. To remove to order the customer has two options. Either going backend and searching the order and its refund(s)
and invoice them, either settling the order but that means that now there's money deposited on the customer account.

Any of the two option isn't perfect a it still requires manual intervention from the customer and wouldn't work on previous data. Creating a server action to correct those data wouldn't have been feasible either.

Instead, the approach we're taking is the following: When loading the list of order to settle we want to remove the orders and the potential refunds were the customer account is evened out.

We only need to look at the orders of the partners that contains refunds for which the customer account was used. If the sum of the transactions made on the customer account is 0 we can say that the order and its refunds have cancelled out each other (in terms of customer account) and we don't show them if the list of orders remaining to settle.

opw-6170830

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117725

## Steps to reproduce:
- Install the `quality_mrp` module.
- Create a new product.
- Create a Quality Point with: 
  Type: Measure,
  Control per: Product/Operation
  Operations: Manufacturing
- Create and confirm MO for the product.
- Update the Quality Point: 
  Remove the 'manufacturing' operation type and add 'receipts' type. 
  Change Control per to 'Quantity'.
- Open the MO and start a quality check.
- Enter an invalid measure and try to validate it.

## Error:
`AttributeError - 'mrp.production' object has no attribute 'lot_producing_id'`

## Cause:
Since commit https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/4bb4e08066449177f89382718ceadd840ce90d0e, the `lot_producing_id` field on MO was replaced by the Many2many field `lot_producing_ids`. Invalid references to the removed field lead to an error.

## Fix:
This commit uses the first lot/serial from the MO.
Note: Multiple produced lots are only possible for serial-tracked products.

sentry-7511513479

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119231

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#268128
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#266917

**Steps to reproduce:**

- Setup a Verifactu installation and a Spanish company
- Go to the PoS, make a Sale
- Keep the ticket
- Go to the /pos/ticket URL and enter the ticket informations
- Last step also works when requesting an invoice in the backend on the order
- Go to the order in the backend, an error is shown, the cancellation didn't go through
**Veri*Factu documents can only be generated for paid or posted Point of Sale Orders.**

**Why the fix:**

When we directly invoice an order, we do not go through the verification of being paid and done. This is why is works, but when making the invoice after the sale is done, we cancel the order first, then we register the invoice instead. When trying to cancel the order, we check if the order is either paid or done, but it is currently invoiced as we just generated the invoice.

We now allow no errors if the order is in the invoiced state, and let it pass through.
With this flow we get the same result as the direct invoice from the PoS.

The new cancellation on the order  and submission on the invoice may take a bit of time to get accepted but they will be eventually.

opw-6139200

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#267869
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264272

Issue:
Sending payments to SAT before its full amount is reconciled allow sending the same invoice payment several times to CFDI.

Steps to reproduce:
- In a Mexican company
- Create an invoice A of $40 to Inmobiliaria CVA
- Confirm and send to CFDI
- Go to bank, create a new Bank transaction of $80
- reconcile with Invoice A
- Go to invoice A => click on button "Update payments" (it doesn't appear in previous versions)
- Then sheet CFDI and Download There is the first XML sent to CFDI with payment for invoice A
- Create an invoice B of $40 to Inmobilira CVA
- Confirm and send to CFDI
- reconcile the transaction with Invoice B
- Go to invoice B
- Click on button "Update payments"
- Then sheet CFDI and Download There is the second XML sent to CFDI with payment for invoices A and B

Invoice A payment was sent twice to CFDI

Expected behavior:
- The "Update payment" button should appear only once the invoice payment is fully reconciled.

Current behavior:
- The update payment button appear once the invoice is reconciled with a payment.

The method `_l10n_mx_edi_cfdi_invoice_get_payments_diff` is called twice, once to check whether it's needed to display the "Update button" and once when you try to update the payment (called only after clicking on said button).

opw-5432421

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119244
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#108355

Currently, it's possible to experience very slow loading speed of the partner list and/or browser crashes in the POS when there are thousands of customers stored in the browser cache.

This appears to be caused by a few reasons compounding together:

1. While we limit the number of customers in the initial render of the list, there is no limit during the search. Therefore, if there are thousands of customers matching the search pattern loaded in the browser cache, the browser will attempt to render equally as many `PartnerLine` components.
2. A 100 ms debounce time is fast enough to trigger the render after each key stroke. 200~300ms is the industry standard for Software UI debounce.
3. For each customer rendered in the list, we may perform a search for its parent partner amongst all loaded customers with the function `PosStore.getPartnerCredit()`.

This PR aims at reducing the number of partner lines rendered in a short period of time and thus, at improving speed and avoiding crashes.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Create a fresh db + install the point_of_sale with demo data
2. Populate the res.partner model by a factor of 100 to reach 4000+ partners
3. Update the following system parameter to make sure that we load all partners in the browser cache when we open the POS session:
    - `point_of_sale.limited_customer_count` -> 5000
4. Open a POS session and and click on the `Customer` button to render the partner list
5. Type `adm` in the search bar at normal typing speed
6. Crash

Ticket: opw-5435973

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#258667

Backport of https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/267790

Before this commit, when loading discuss app initially with demo data, sometimes there was a crash from maximum stack.

This happens due to infinite loop in discuss store with field `livechats`, which as a computed inverse `appAsLivechat`:

- Initially the field `livechats` has 2 conversations `[1, 2]`
- When adding conversation `3`, the `appAsLivechat` auto-computes to add this conversation to `livechats`, which triggers these field commands:

1. `appAsLivechat`: `[["REPLACE", 3]]`
2. `livechats`: `[["ADD.noinv", DiscussApp]]`

This is fine by itself, but somehow the `"ADD.noinv"` triggers a `[["DELETE.noinv", 1]]` on the inverse field `appAsLivechat`, which is then turned by the versioning system into a `[["REPLACE", [3]]]`, which in turn does a `[["DELETE.noinv", 1]]` and so on infinitely.

The `"DELETE.noinv"` is turned into `"REPLACE"` by the versioning of fields, which is ok, but it does it mistakenly with only considering new field `[3]` rather than having also `[1, 2]` that was there before. The history lacks `[1, 2]` so that's why it can't `"REPLACE"` with these values, even though the saved data already has them, but then the store is aware of deletion of these records, hence the infinite loop.

The underlying issue is that live chats `[1, 2]` were added in store without any track in history. This comes from some internal operations on record lists that apply related change on inverse, but this is done immediately with `.add()` or `.delete()` which doesn't reach the tracking of history of field version in `updateFields()`.

This commit fixes the issue by converting the `[inverse].add()` and `[inverse].delete()` into `updateFields()`, so that this is the same operation but it makes it tracked by the field version history.

Task-6073452

### [FIX] website: prevent inserting block snippet with powerbox in inlines

Inserting block snippet with powerbox when the selection is inside an editable part limited to an element that can only contain inline nodes leads to invalid html (like `<div>` inside `<span>`).

This commit disables insertion of block snippets when the selection is such a part of the document.

Steps to reproduce:
- Open website builder
- Put cursor in "copyright" at the bottom of the footer
- Type `/alert` and press enter
- Bug: `<div>` element is inserted inside `<span>`, that is invalid html

task-6259092

### [FIX] website: prevent unwrapping `s_blockquote` on insert with powerbox

When the snippet `s_blockquote` was inserted with the powerbox or pasted from clipboard in an unbreakable element which does not allow blocks as children, the `<blockquote>` element itself was abandonned and its children were inserted instead. This lead to insertion of a broken snippet.

This commit marks the `s_blockquote` snippet as "unsplittable" so that always stays in one piece when inserted.

Steps to reproduce:
- Open website builder
- Put cursor in a link
- Type `/blockquote` and press enter
- Bug: the snippet's children are inserted, instead of snippet itself

task-6259092

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#267111

### Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:
Prevent Out of Memory (OOM) crashes and drastically improve execution speed when generating the Swedish SIE4 verification export for massive datasets.

### Current behavior before PR:
When exporting a large volume of journal entries (e.g., 190,000+ account moves), the `_export_l10n_se_sie4_verification` method relies on iterating through heavy ORM recordsets and accessing relational child fields (move.line_ids) inside a loop. This triggers a severe N+1 query problem, maxing out server RAM and causing an OOM crash.

### Desired behavior after PR is merged:
The method now utilizes a hybrid data extraction approach:
- The ORM is used strictly to safely evaluate domains (multi-company rules, dates, states) and fetch a lightweight list of valid move_ids.
- A single SQL query with JOIN statements fetches all parent moves, child lines, and account codes in exactly one database query.
- itertools.groupby chunks the flat, lightweight dictionary results back into their respective journal entries.
The export now handles massive datasets in seconds with minimal memory overhead, while remaining perfectly secure.

### Benchmark:

For Memory:
| # Input Data | Before PR | After PR |
| -------- | -------- | -------- |
| ~190,000 moves | MemoryError | 407MB|
| ~200,000 moves | 1.8GB | 174.8 MB|

For Speed:
| # Input Data | Before PR | After PR |
| -------- | -------- | -------- |
| ~190,000 moves | MemoryError | 5.10s |
| ~200,000 moves | 1m29s| 5.3s|

### Reference:
opw-6067999

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118849
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#113227

### 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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118319

Currently, if you refund an order made on the customer account with the customer account as well, you can still see the order in the list of orders to settle.

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
* Open shop
* Make an order using the customer account for a customer, don't invoice it
* Refund one of the order using the customer account, don't invoice it
* Make a new order using the customer account
* In the customer list, find the customer used and select "Settle Orders"
> The 2 orders are present in the list

Why the fix:
------------
Originally the list would only show the orders for chich the customers have due (>0).
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/bf4b6043b999b4a081b1afa73fc4113bf4db28f8

But recently the code we also see the refunds in the list as well.
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/12af23d5382e972facfaa999e4c5ab30c97e8d1f

However this new behavior is not visible if, with the refund, the customer account temporarily falls to 0.

So currently we have some refunds that impact the amount to settle and some that don't. Originally we were thinking that either we should show all refunds in that list (given they use the customer account) or we shouldn't show any as it was previously. Both solutions are not ideal.
* Showing them all would get the list bigger than it is and would require the customer to select the order and its refund(s) and settle them together. Since refunds are not usually done right after the order they would not be close it that list. However this solution would enable the option to remove the orders from the list requiring a few step from the customer.
* Showing none isn't idea either with this use case as it means that we still see orders that were cancelled out by their refunds. To remove to order the customer has two options. Either going backend and searching the order and its refund(s)
and invoice them, either settling the order but that means that now there's money deposited on the customer account.

Any of the two option isn't perfect a it still requires manual intervention from the customer and wouldn't work on previous data. Creating a server action to correct those data wouldn't have been feasible either.

Instead, the approach we're taking is the following: When loading the list of order to settle we want to remove the orders and the potential refunds were the customer account is evened out.

We only need to look at the orders of the partners that contains refunds for which the customer account was used. If the sum of the transactions made on the customer account is 0 we can say that the order and its refunds have cancelled out each other (in terms of customer account) and we don't show them if the list of orders remaining to settle.

opw-6170830

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117725

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install Accounting and l10n_ro_edi
- Switch to a Romanian localization (e.g. RO Company)
- Configure Romanian E-Factura

- Create an invoice with a product having a name longer than 100 chars
- Confirm the invoice
- Send E-Factura to SPV
- Fetch E-Factura status

**Issue:**
The invoice is rejected with the following error:
"[BR-RO-L100]-The allowed maximum number of characters for the Item name (BT-153) is 100."

**Similar issue with the product description:**
"[BR-RO-L200]-The allowed maximum number of characters for the Item description (BT-154) is 200."

**Similar issue with the note (i.e. Terms and Conditions):**
"[BR-RO-L300]-The allowed maximum number of characters for the Invoice note (BT-22) is 300."

**Solution:**
Truncate the name of the product to 100 chars in the electronic invoice, the description of the product to 200 and the note to 300.

opw-5964904




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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#268192
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265811

Currently, it's possible to experience very slow loading speed of the partner list and/or browser crashes in the POS when there are thousands of customers stored in the browser cache.

This appears to be caused by a few reasons compounding together:

1. While we limit the number of customers in the initial render of the list, there is no limit during the search. Therefore, if there are thousands of customers matching the search pattern loaded in the browser cache, the browser will attempt to render equally as many `PartnerLine` components.
2. A 100 ms debounce time is fast enough to trigger the render after each key stroke. 200~300ms is the industry standard for Software UI debounce.
3. For each customer rendered in the list, we may perform a search for its parent partner amongst all loaded customers with the function `PosStore.getPartnerCredit()`.

This PR aims at reducing the number of partner lines rendered in a short period of time and thus, at improving speed and avoiding crashes.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Create a fresh db + install the point_of_sale with demo data
2. Populate the res.partner model by a factor of 100 to reach 4000+ partners
3. Update the following system parameter to make sure that we load all partners in the browser cache when we open the POS session:
    - `point_of_sale.limited_customer_count` -> 5000
4. Open a POS session and and click on the `Customer` button to render the partner list
5. Type `adm` in the search bar at normal typing speed
6. Crash

Ticket: opw-5435973

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#258667

### [FIX] website: prevent inserting block snippet with powerbox in inlines

Inserting block snippet with powerbox when the selection is inside an editable part limited to an element that can only contain inline nodes leads to invalid html (like `<div>` inside `<span>`).

This commit disables insertion of block snippets when the selection is such a part of the document.

Steps to reproduce:
- Open website builder
- Put cursor in "copyright" at the bottom of the footer
- Type `/alert` and press enter
- Bug: `<div>` element is inserted inside `<span>`, that is invalid html

task-6259092

### [FIX] website: prevent unwrapping `s_blockquote` on insert with powerbox

When the snippet `s_blockquote` was inserted with the powerbox or pasted from clipboard in an unbreakable element which does not allow blocks as children, the `<blockquote>` element itself was abandonned and its children were inserted instead. This lead to insertion of a broken snippet.

This commit marks the `s_blockquote` snippet as "unsplittable" so that always stays in one piece when inserted.

Steps to reproduce:
- Open website builder
- Put cursor in a link
- Type `/blockquote` and press enter
- Bug: the snippet's children are inserted, instead of snippet itself

task-6259092

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#267111

Implement the Belgian Registered Cash Register (Caisse Enregistreuse Certifiée) v2 specification as required by FPS Finance for certified POS restaurant systems.

The implementation is split into a core module and five bridge modules:

l10n_be_pos_blackbox (main module):
- FDM (Fiscal Data Module) communication layer that signs every fiscal
  event by sending a structured message to the blackbox device and
  receiving a hash + VSC counter in return.
  M110 (sale), M111 (refund), M112 (partial refund), M121 (order),
  M122 (cost-centre change), M123 (pre-bill), M130 (money in/out),
  M131 (drawer open), M140/M141 (work in/out), M150 (invoice),
  M160 (copy), M180/M181 (X/Z turnover report), M182/M183 (user X/Z
  report), UC230 (sale correction).
  M160 (copy), M180/M181 (X/Z turnover report), M182/M183 (user X/Z
  report), UC230 (sale correction).
- Input generator that encodes all line-level fiscal data (PLU hash,
  VAT groups, price rounding, grouping IDs) according to the spec.
- Fiscal receipt template (XML) that renders the blackbox hash,
  VSC counter, POS system identifier, and event sequence number on
  every printed receipt.
- X/Z daily report views with fiscal totals per VAT category.
- Training-mode support: activates the FDM training flag so the
  device does not count test transactions.
- Inspect popup (debug) for examining raw FDM messages.
- Error/warning popup system with traceback messages from the device.
- LocalStorage queue to replay pending mutations after a network
  outage.
- pos_config / pos_session overrides: enforce blackbox constraints
  (only EUR, no rounding, mandatory restaurant mode, etc.),
  manage device pairing, and accumulate per-session fiscal counters.
- Extensive unit-test suite: >6 000 lines covering the input
  generator's grouping-ID logic, price-consistency rules, and every
  mutation type against golden JSON fixtures.
- Browser tour tests (oracle + regression tours).

l10n_be_pos_blackbox_hr:
- Clock-in / clock-out flows for employees trigger M140/M141 work
  in/out mutations; employee INSZ/NISS number is required and stored
  on hr.employee; pos_session accumulates per-employee work records.

l10n_be_pos_blackbox_loyalty:
- Gift-card and discount reward lines are mapped to the correct MPV
  fiscal codes (UC260/UC261); loyalty products are flagged so the
  input generator can calculate their contribution to the signed
  total correctly.

l10n_be_pos_blackbox_self_order:
- Intercepts self-order confirmation on kiosk screens to sign the
  order with the FDM before the confirmation page is shown; adds a
  controller to expose the required blackbox data to the kiosk
  frontend.

l10n_be_pos_blackbox_settle_due:
- Handles the "settle due" payment flow: products used to represent
  deferred payments are flagged and treated as zero-VAT lines in the
  signed message.

l10n_be_pos_blackbox_urban_piper:
- Patches the Urban Piper ticket-screen and pos_store so that online
  orders routed through Urban Piper are also signed before finalisation.

task-id: 5864870

community PR: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/229692

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#96130

Refactor several POS core methods into overridable hooks so that
l10n_be_pos_blackbox (v2) can intercept and extend critical flows
to implement the new blackbox requirements.

point_of_sale:
- pos_store.js: extract posBackOnline(), openCashbox(),
  getSelfOrderToPrint(), and resetCashier() as dedicated methods;
  setCashier() now returns a boolean; preSyncAllOrders() now returns
  the orders array, and the sync loop skips an order when it returns
  falsy (allows blackbox to block premature syncing); add
  orderReceiptComponent class property so the receipt component can
  be substituted by submodules.
- order_payment_validation.js: extract canPrintReceipt getter (makes
  it overridable); fix absolute import path for error_handlers; fix
  typo "occured" → "occurred".
- pos_session.py: load product.template / product.product before
  account.tax in _load_pos_data_models to satisfy the blackbox data
  dependency order; include account_move id in the invoice list
  returned by the session sales-details report.

pos_hr:
- Split setCashier() into setCashier() + setCashierUpdateSession()
  so the session-update side-effect can be called independently by
  the blackbox during clock-in/out flows. Return true from
  setCashier() consistently with the base method.

pos_loyalty:
- Override displayPrice on order lines so gift-card trigger products
  always display a positive price, even when the order is a refund.

pos_restaurant:
- Refactor mergeOrders() into _mergeOrders() + _mergeLines() private
  helpers; add getLinesToMerge() hook so blackbox can filter which
  lines participate in a merge; mergeOrders() now returns the
  destination order; extract syncRestoredOrders() for overridability;
  replace the while-loop-with-guard-counter with a plain for-of loop.

pos_self_order:
- Add orderReceiptComponent property; extract
  handleKioskSessionStatusChange() so the kiosk status-change
  behaviour can be overridden by the blackbox self-order bridge.

task-id: 5864870

enterprise PR: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/96130




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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#229692

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
1. Install `sale_project_stock` and Accounting.
2. Create a storable product with **Real-time valuation** and 
configure the COGS account in the product category expense account.
(Ensure you have enabled automatic & analytic accounting from accounting>config.)
3. Create a project with a specific analytic account and ensure the project is billable.
4. Create a sale order with the created product and set the same
analytic account in the analytic distribution.
5. Confirm the order, deliver the product, generate the invoice, and post it.
6. Open the project and go to the *Profitability* report.
7. Click on the **Cost of Goods Sold** dashboard item.
8. Repeat steps 4–7 with multiple invoices.

Issue:
------
When there is only one invoice, clicking the COGS dashboard item correctly
displays the related move lines. However, when there are multiple invoices,
the action opens with empty results.

Cause:
------
`_get_action_for_profitability_section` sets `res_id` only when a single record exists. 
When multiple records are present, `res_id` becomes `False`, which causes the action to open without results. https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/8f79d407724f40ba8e48f1747b2e87311b7fb49e/addons/project_account/models/project_project.py#L78-L83

Solution:
---------
When `res_id` is not set, search `account.move` records using the
domain to retrieve the relevant move IDs, then apply a proper domain
to display all related COGS journal items.


opw-5949261



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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#267097
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#253639

### 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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118319

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#268269
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265352

Currently, if you refund an order made on the customer account with the customer account as well, you can still see the order in the list of orders to settle.

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
* Open shop
* Make an order using the customer account for a customer, don't invoice it
* Refund one of the order using the customer account, don't invoice it
* Make a new order using the customer account
* In the customer list, find the customer used and select "Settle Orders"
> The 2 orders are present in the list

Why the fix:
------------
Originally the list would only show the orders for chich the customers have due (>0).
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/bf4b6043b999b4a081b1afa73fc4113bf4db28f8

But recently the code we also see the refunds in the list as well.
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/12af23d5382e972facfaa999e4c5ab30c97e8d1f

However this new behavior is not visible if, with the refund, the customer account temporarily falls to 0.

So currently we have some refunds that impact the amount to settle and some that don't. Originally we were thinking that either we should show all refunds in that list (given they use the customer account) or we shouldn't show any as it was previously. Both solutions are not ideal.
* Showing them all would get the list bigger than it is and would require the customer to select the order and its refund(s) and settle them together. Since refunds are not usually done right after the order they would not be close it that list. However this solution would enable the option to remove the orders from the list requiring a few step from the customer.
* Showing none isn't idea either with this use case as it means that we still see orders that were cancelled out by their refunds. To remove to order the customer has two options. Either going backend and searching the order and its refund(s)
and invoice them, either settling the order but that means that now there's money deposited on the customer account.

Any of the two option isn't perfect a it still requires manual intervention from the customer and wouldn't work on previous data. Creating a server action to correct those data wouldn't have been feasible either.

Instead, the approach we're taking is the following: When loading the list of order to settle we want to remove the orders and the potential refunds were the customer account is evened out.

We only need to look at the orders of the partners that contains refunds for which the customer account was used. If the sum of the transactions made on the customer account is 0 we can say that the order and its refunds have cancelled out each other (in terms of customer account) and we don't show them if the list of orders remaining to settle.

opw-6170830

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117725

## Steps to reproduce:
- Install the `quality_mrp` module.
- Create a new product.
- Create a Quality Point with: 
  Type: Measure,
  Control per: Product/Operation
  Operations: Manufacturing
- Create and confirm MO for the product.
- Update the Quality Point: 
  Remove the 'manufacturing' operation type and add 'receipts' type. 
  Change Control per to 'Quantity'.
- Open the MO and start a quality check.
- Enter an invalid measure and try to validate it.

## Error:
`AttributeError - 'mrp.production' object has no attribute 'lot_producing_id'`

## Cause:
Since commit https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/4bb4e08066449177f89382718ceadd840ce90d0e, the `lot_producing_id` field on MO was replaced by the Many2many field `lot_producing_ids`. Invalid references to the removed field lead to an error.

## Fix:
This commit uses the first lot/serial from the MO.
Note: Multiple produced lots are only possible for serial-tracked products.

sentry-7511513479

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119231

Currently, an error occurs when user tries to select a property field in auto field.

Steps to replicate:
- Install `sale_management` and `sign`.
- Open Sales > Products > Products > Open any product.
- From the Gear icon, Click Edit Properties and save the record.
- Enable Debug mode if you are using a version lower than 19.0 .
- Open Sign > Configuration > Field Types.
- Create a new Field > Give a name > Select model as `Product`.
- Select Field as `Property > Property 1` and click save.

Error:
- saas-18.3 and later:
```
  File '/home/odoo/odoo18/enterprise/sign/models/sign_item_type.py', line 57, in _check_auto_field_exists
    auto_field_value = record.mapped(sign_type.auto_field)
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File '/home/odoo/odoo18/community/odoo/orm/models.py', line 5472, in mapped
    field = records._fields[field_name]
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
AttributeError: 'Property' object has no attribute '_fields'. Did you mean: 'field'?
```

- saas-18.2:
```
  File '/home/odoo/odoo18/enterprise/sign/models/sign_item_type.py, line 41, in _check_auto_field_exists
    auto_field_value = record.mapped(sign_type.auto_field)
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File '/home/odoo/odoo18/community/odoo/orm/models.py', line 5744, in mapped
    if len(records) > PREFETCH_MAX:
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^
TypeError: object of type 'bool' has no len()
```

Cause:
- As the user gave auto fill field as a Property field the [line] called `mapped()` to access its value, this caused the error to occur.

- This occurs because `mapped()` expects a `recordset` (models.Model), but instead it receives a Property object, which does not have `_fields`.

Solution:
- Using `'allow_properties': 'False'`, the property fields wont appear in the list of field selection.

[line]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/cdaeb79e1f623831fffa553dbb658698367c7e19/sign/models/sign_item_type.py#L41

sentry-7378769090

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#113091

**Steps to reproduce:**

- Setup a Verifactu installation and a Spanish company
- Go to the PoS, make a Sale
- Keep the ticket
- Go to the /pos/ticket URL and enter the ticket informations
- Last step also works when requesting an invoice in the backend on the order
- Go to the order in the backend, an error is shown, the cancellation didn't go through
**Veri*Factu documents can only be generated for paid or posted Point of Sale Orders.**

**Why the fix:**

When we directly invoice an order, we do not go through the verification of being paid and done. This is why is works, but when making the invoice after the sale is done, we cancel the order first, then we register the invoice instead. When trying to cancel the order, we check if the order is either paid or done, but it is currently invoiced as we just generated the invoice.

We now allow no errors if the order is in the invoiced state, and let it pass through.
With this flow we get the same result as the direct invoice from the PoS.

The new cancellation on the order  and submission on the invoice may take a bit of time to get accepted but they will be eventually.

opw-6139200

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#267869
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264272

### [FIX] website: prevent inserting block snippet with powerbox in inlines

Inserting block snippet with powerbox when the selection is inside an editable part limited to an element that can only contain inline nodes leads to invalid html (like `<div>` inside `<span>`).

This commit disables insertion of block snippets when the selection is such a part of the document.

Steps to reproduce:
- Open website builder
- Put cursor in "copyright" at the bottom of the footer
- Type `/alert` and press enter
- Bug: `<div>` element is inserted inside `<span>`, that is invalid html

task-6259092

### [FIX] website: prevent unwrapping `s_blockquote` on insert with powerbox

When the snippet `s_blockquote` was inserted with the powerbox or pasted from clipboard in an unbreakable element which does not allow blocks as children, the `<blockquote>` element itself was abandonned and its children were inserted instead. This lead to insertion of a broken snippet.

This commit marks the `s_blockquote` snippet as "unsplittable" so that always stays in one piece when inserted.

Steps to reproduce:
- Open website builder
- Put cursor in a link
- Type `/blockquote` and press enter
- Bug: the snippet's children are inserted, instead of snippet itself

task-6259092

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#267111

**Steps to reproduce:**
* Install the **l10n_es_edi_sii** module.
* Create a **Portuguese customer**.
* Go to **Settings** and enable **EU Intra-community Distance Selling**, then refresh the tax mapping.
* Create a customer invoice with a **"No Sujeto por reglas de localización"** tax (e.g. **23.0% PT VAT**).
* Go to **Accounting → Reporting → Tax Report → OSS Sales**.
* Export the **VAT Record Books (XLSX)** file and open it.

**Observed behavior:**
* The "Clave de Operación" column shows "01" for lines with no_sujeto_loc taxes instead of "17".
* The SII JSON for the same invoice correctly shows "ClaveRegimenEspecialOTrascendencia": "17".

**Cause:**
* In `_l10n_es_libros_get_common_line_vals()`, `operation_code` was computed manually as `'02' if exempt_reason else '01'`, which only handled the E2 exempt case and defaulted everything else to "01".
* This missed OSS/no_sujeto_loc taxes (e.g. FR VAT, PT VAT) that should produce "17" per the Spanish VAT regime code table.

**Fix:**
* Extract operation code computation into a new dedicated method `_l10n_es_libros_get_operation_code()`.
* For customer invoices, delegate to the existing `_l10n_es_get_regime_code()` method already used by SII, which correctly returns "17" for OSS-tagged taxes, "02" for E2 exempt, and "01" otherwise.
* For vendor bills, mirror the SII logic by checking whether the invoice taxes include tags from `mod_303_casilla_10_balance` or `mod_303_casilla_11_balance` (intra-community indicators), returning "09" if so and "01" otherwise.

opw-6197141,6216485

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117236

Currently, an error occurs when user tries to select a property field in auto field.

Steps to replicate:
- Install `sale_management` and `sign`.
- Open Sales > Products > Products > Open any product.
- From the Gear icon, Click Edit Properties and save the record.
- Enable Debug mode if you are using a version lower than 19.0 .
- Open Sign > Configuration > Field Types.
- Create a new Field > Give a name > Select model as `Product`.
- Select Field as `Property > Property 1` and click save.

Error:
- saas-18.3 and later:
```
  File '/home/odoo/odoo18/enterprise/sign/models/sign_item_type.py', line 57, in _check_auto_field_exists
    auto_field_value = record.mapped(sign_type.auto_field)
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File '/home/odoo/odoo18/community/odoo/orm/models.py', line 5472, in mapped
    field = records._fields[field_name]
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
AttributeError: 'Property' object has no attribute '_fields'. Did you mean: 'field'?
```

- saas-18.2:
```
  File '/home/odoo/odoo18/enterprise/sign/models/sign_item_type.py, line 41, in _check_auto_field_exists
    auto_field_value = record.mapped(sign_type.auto_field)
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File '/home/odoo/odoo18/community/odoo/orm/models.py', line 5744, in mapped
    if len(records) > PREFETCH_MAX:
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^
TypeError: object of type 'bool' has no len()
```

Cause:
- As the user gave auto fill field as a Property field the [line] called `mapped()` to access its value, this caused the error to occur.

- This occurs because `mapped()` expects a `recordset` (models.Model), but instead it receives a Property object, which does not have `_fields`.

Solution:
- Using `'allow_properties': 'False'`, the property fields wont appear in the list of field selection.

[line]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/cdaeb79e1f623831fffa553dbb658698367c7e19/sign/models/sign_item_type.py#L41

sentry-7378769090

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#113091

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#119263
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#113618

**Steps to reproduce:**
* Install the **l10n_es_edi_sii** module.
* Create a **Portuguese customer**.
* Go to **Settings** and enable **EU Intra-community Distance Selling**, then refresh the tax mapping.
* Create a customer invoice with a **"No Sujeto por reglas de localización"** tax (e.g. **23.0% PT VAT**).
* Go to **Accounting → Reporting → Tax Report → OSS Sales**.
* Export the **VAT Record Books (XLSX)** file and open it.

**Observed behavior:**
* The "Clave de Operación" column shows "01" for lines with no_sujeto_loc taxes instead of "17".
* The SII JSON for the same invoice correctly shows "ClaveRegimenEspecialOTrascendencia": "17".

**Cause:**
* In `_l10n_es_libros_get_common_line_vals()`, `operation_code` was computed manually as `'02' if exempt_reason else '01'`, which only handled the E2 exempt case and defaulted everything else to "01".
* This missed OSS/no_sujeto_loc taxes (e.g. FR VAT, PT VAT) that should produce "17" per the Spanish VAT regime code table.

**Fix:**
* Extract operation code computation into a new dedicated method `_l10n_es_libros_get_operation_code()`.
* For customer invoices, delegate to the existing `_l10n_es_get_regime_code()` method already used by SII, which correctly returns "17" for OSS-tagged taxes, "02" for E2 exempt, and "01" otherwise.
* For vendor bills, mirror the SII logic by checking whether the invoice taxes include tags from `mod_303_casilla_10_balance` or `mod_303_casilla_11_balance` (intra-community indicators), returning "09" if so and "01" otherwise.

opw-6197141,6216485

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117236

Currently, an error occurs when user tries to select a property field in auto field.

Steps to replicate:
- Install `sale_management` and `sign`.
- Open Sales > Products > Products > Open any product.
- From the Gear icon, Click Edit Properties and save the record.
- Enable Debug mode if you are using a version lower than 19.0 .
- Open Sign > Configuration > Field Types.
- Create a new Field > Give a name > Select model as `Product`.
- Select Field as `Property > Property 1` and click save.

Error:
- saas-18.3 and later:
```
  File '/home/odoo/odoo18/enterprise/sign/models/sign_item_type.py', line 57, in _check_auto_field_exists
    auto_field_value = record.mapped(sign_type.auto_field)
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File '/home/odoo/odoo18/community/odoo/orm/models.py', line 5472, in mapped
    field = records._fields[field_name]
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
AttributeError: 'Property' object has no attribute '_fields'. Did you mean: 'field'?
```

- saas-18.2:
```
  File '/home/odoo/odoo18/enterprise/sign/models/sign_item_type.py, line 41, in _check_auto_field_exists
    auto_field_value = record.mapped(sign_type.auto_field)
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File '/home/odoo/odoo18/community/odoo/orm/models.py', line 5744, in mapped
    if len(records) > PREFETCH_MAX:
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^
TypeError: object of type 'bool' has no len()
```

Cause:
- As the user gave auto fill field as a Property field the [line] called `mapped()` to access its value, this caused the error to occur.

- This occurs because `mapped()` expects a `recordset` (models.Model), but instead it receives a Property object, which does not have `_fields`.

Solution:
- Using `'allow_properties': 'False'`, the property fields wont appear in the list of field selection.

[line]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/cdaeb79e1f623831fffa553dbb658698367c7e19/sign/models/sign_item_type.py#L41

sentry-7378769090

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#113091

**Issue**
In subcontracting, deleting a raw move line and adding a new one in the same editing flow can lead to a validation error during production recording.

**Steps to reproduce**
- Create a subcontracting product with a comp A
- Create and confirm a purchase order of that product (with the subcontracting partner)
- Open the associated delivery
- Open the move details (hamburger button)
- Delete the move line linked to the comp A
- Create a new move line for a comp B with a quantity of 1
- Record the production
-> A validation error occurs: the mandatory field `product_uom_id` is not set.

**Cause**
The regression comes from this commit: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/54f10b56f577ad9ed5575bd396dba7d20d22fc2e

While assigning `move_raw_ids`, the inverse method is triggered:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/9267b2d1a9b2d2d6a33eceab07d572406c68c723/addons/mrp_subcontracting/models/mrp_production.py#L34
At this stage, newly added lines are still virtual records (`line`):
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/9267b2d1a9b2d2d6a33eceab07d572406c68c723/addons/mrp_subcontracting/models/mrp_production.py#L38
The previous implementation directly unlinked removed move lines (see commit https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/54f10b56f577ad9ed5575bd396dba7d20d22fc2e):
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/9267b2d1a9b2d2d6a33eceab07d572406c68c723/addons/mrp_subcontracting/models/mrp_production.py#L40-L43
Which will eventually flush and invalidate all the cache:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0e78b4fd2ab904f2e12107cb6ff7cc11d512259f/odoo/models.py#L4666
And since `line` is a virtual record (not in db), its associated values will be reset, among those, `product_uom_id`.
Later, when the move line is reassigned:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0e78b4fd2ab904f2e12107cb6ff7cc11d512259f/addons/mrp_subcontracting/models/mrp_production.py#L49
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0e78b4fd2ab904f2e12107cb6ff7cc11d512259f/odoo/models.py#L5223-L5228

the validation fails because the virtual line no longer contains the required values.

**Additional note**
An alternative could have been using Command but since this line:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0e78b4fd2ab904f2e12107cb6ff7cc11d512259f/addons/mrp_subcontracting/models/mrp_production.py#L42
can not be converted to:
`Command.set([line.id for line in lines])`
because `lines` may also contain virtual records.
This causes an invalid quantity for the move. Indeed, even if the command operator would update the quantity
on the `move_line` correctly, it won't for the quantity of the `move` because of its associated compute method:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/26ba95ac1c5bbb24975efb1a6f53c1ab47b61532/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L399-L400
that relies on `.ids`, which is `[]` on virtual records.
Therefore, keep the change minimal.

opw-6133281

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263058

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OPW: 5426718



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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#267590
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262577

**Steps to reproduce:**
* Install the **l10n_es_edi_sii** module.
* Create a **Portuguese customer**.
* Go to **Settings** and enable **EU Intra-community Distance Selling**, then refresh the tax mapping.
* Create a customer invoice with a **"No Sujeto por reglas de localización"** tax (e.g. **23.0% PT VAT**).
* Go to **Accounting → Reporting → Tax Report → OSS Sales**.
* Export the **VAT Record Books (XLSX)** file and open it.

**Observed behavior:**
* The "Clave de Operación" column shows "01" for lines with no_sujeto_loc taxes instead of "17".
* The SII JSON for the same invoice correctly shows "ClaveRegimenEspecialOTrascendencia": "17".

**Cause:**
* In `_l10n_es_libros_get_common_line_vals()`, `operation_code` was computed manually as `'02' if exempt_reason else '01'`, which only handled the E2 exempt case and defaulted everything else to "01".
* This missed OSS/no_sujeto_loc taxes (e.g. FR VAT, PT VAT) that should produce "17" per the Spanish VAT regime code table.

**Fix:**
* Extract operation code computation into a new dedicated method `_l10n_es_libros_get_operation_code()`.
* For customer invoices, delegate to the existing `_l10n_es_get_regime_code()` method already used by SII, which correctly returns "17" for OSS-tagged taxes, "02" for E2 exempt, and "01" otherwise.
* For vendor bills, mirror the SII logic by checking whether the invoice taxes include tags from `mod_303_casilla_10_balance` or `mod_303_casilla_11_balance` (intra-community indicators), returning "09" if so and "01" otherwise.

opw-6197141,6216485

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117236

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

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#119186
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117028

### 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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118319

**Steps to reproduce:**
* Install the **l10n_es_edi_sii** module.
* Create a **Portuguese customer**.
* Go to **Settings** and enable **EU Intra-community Distance Selling**, then refresh the tax mapping.
* Create a customer invoice with a **"No Sujeto por reglas de localización"** tax (e.g. **23.0% PT VAT**).
* Go to **Accounting → Reporting → Tax Report → OSS Sales**.
* Export the **VAT Record Books (XLSX)** file and open it.

**Observed behavior:**
* The "Clave de Operación" column shows "01" for lines with no_sujeto_loc taxes instead of "17".
* The SII JSON for the same invoice correctly shows "ClaveRegimenEspecialOTrascendencia": "17".

**Cause:**
* In `_l10n_es_libros_get_common_line_vals()`, `operation_code` was computed manually as `'02' if exempt_reason else '01'`, which only handled the E2 exempt case and defaulted everything else to "01".
* This missed OSS/no_sujeto_loc taxes (e.g. FR VAT, PT VAT) that should produce "17" per the Spanish VAT regime code table.

**Fix:**
* Extract operation code computation into a new dedicated method `_l10n_es_libros_get_operation_code()`.
* For customer invoices, delegate to the existing `_l10n_es_get_regime_code()` method already used by SII, which correctly returns "17" for OSS-tagged taxes, "02" for E2 exempt, and "01" otherwise.
* For vendor bills, mirror the SII logic by checking whether the invoice taxes include tags from `mod_303_casilla_10_balance` or `mod_303_casilla_11_balance` (intra-community indicators), returning "09" if so and "01" otherwise.

opw-6197141,6216485

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117236

Currently, an error occurs when user tries to select a property field in auto field.

Steps to replicate:
- Install `sale_management` and `sign`.
- Open Sales > Products > Products > Open any product.
- From the Gear icon, Click Edit Properties and save the record.
- Enable Debug mode if you are using a version lower than 19.0 .
- Open Sign > Configuration > Field Types.
- Create a new Field > Give a name > Select model as `Product`.
- Select Field as `Property > Property 1` and click save.

Error:
- saas-18.3 and later:
```
  File '/home/odoo/odoo18/enterprise/sign/models/sign_item_type.py', line 57, in _check_auto_field_exists
    auto_field_value = record.mapped(sign_type.auto_field)
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File '/home/odoo/odoo18/community/odoo/orm/models.py', line 5472, in mapped
    field = records._fields[field_name]
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
AttributeError: 'Property' object has no attribute '_fields'. Did you mean: 'field'?
```

- saas-18.2:
```
  File '/home/odoo/odoo18/enterprise/sign/models/sign_item_type.py, line 41, in _check_auto_field_exists
    auto_field_value = record.mapped(sign_type.auto_field)
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File '/home/odoo/odoo18/community/odoo/orm/models.py', line 5744, in mapped
    if len(records) > PREFETCH_MAX:
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^
TypeError: object of type 'bool' has no len()
```

Cause:
- As the user gave auto fill field as a Property field the [line] called `mapped()` to access its value, this caused the error to occur.

- This occurs because `mapped()` expects a `recordset` (models.Model), but instead it receives a Property object, which does not have `_fields`.

Solution:
- Using `'allow_properties': 'False'`, the property fields wont appear in the list of field selection.

[line]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/cdaeb79e1f623831fffa553dbb658698367c7e19/sign/models/sign_item_type.py#L41

sentry-7378769090

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#113091

Issue:
Cancelled journal entries were visible in the "Journal Items to Reconcile" view (action_move_line_posted_unreconciled) because the action domain had no filter to exclude them. This caused reconciliation failures, no reconciliation happened, and the cancelled record remained in the view.

This regression was introduced during a refactor to allow draft entries in the reconciliation view, where the posted-state condition was removed from the domain:

Enterprise commit: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/003cffabda7d91a6d10d58942ed972ca5e17366d

As a result, cancelled journal items also became visible, causing reconciliation attempts to fail while the records remained in the view.

Also, we are not allowed to reconcile cancelled move lines, and we already
have the validation for this [here](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blame/a236f67776616f6facdefb0117a6ffdde9b7c84c/addons/account/models/account_move_line.py#L2627)

Issue is reproducible on runbot. Here is the video reference: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ojIDxHn5Yst8gVFy8JyhwtJoDSSSJsmK/view?usp=sharing

- OPW: 6247870

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118843
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118773

Summary
=======

`_check_if_used_in_website_form`, the ondelete hook on
`ir.model.fields` that guards against deleting a field referenced by
a website form, performs poorly on realistic databases. It can take
multiple minutes to validate a single field deletion, blocking user
actions such as removing a Studio field.

This commit restricts the scan to columns that can actually contain
website form markup, bringing the hook from multi-minute to
sub-second without any loss of coverage.

The Problem
===========

Deleting any `ir.model.fields` record triggers this validation hook,
which must ensure the field is not referenced inside any website
form. The implementation iterates every stored HTML column returned
by `website._get_html_fields()` and runs one case-insensitive
`ILIKE '%data-model_name="<model>"%'` search per column against
`<model>.<html_field>`, then parses each match with `lxml` and
validates it with XPath.

Two root issues cause the multi-minute cost:

- **Unbounded scan surface**: all stored HTML columns are scanned
  (~95 on realistic databases), even though the vast majority of them
  declare `sanitize=True` and `sanitize_form=True` (the defaults).
  When both flags are True, `<form>` tags are stripped on write and
  the column can never physically contain website form markup.
- **Per-column `ILIKE` cost**: `ILIKE` on large TEXT/JSONB columns
  performs a sequential scan. A single large HTML column is enough
  to make the hook run for several minutes on its own.

Improvements
============

- Scan only columns that can actually contain forms:
  - `ir.ui.view.arch_db` , primary target; all website forms are
    stored there.
  - HTML fields whose sanitization either is disabled
    (`sanitize=False`, e.g. `blog.post.content`,
    `website.custom_code_head`) or explicitly allows forms
    (`sanitize_form=False`, e.g.
    `product.template.website_description`, `hr.job.description`,
    `event.event.description`). Any other HTML field strips `<form>`
    on write and will never contain a form.
- Batch searches: group the deleted fields by model once and emit a
  single `OR`-domain search per candidate column, instead of one
  search per (field, column) pair.
- Parse each returned record with `lxml` and validate with XPath
  directly. The `ILIKE` domain already filters out non-matching rows
  DB-side.

Benchmarks
==========

Profiled on a database containing ~95 stored HTML columns and ~5.2k
views. The hook was invoked read-only via
`field._check_if_used_in_website_form()` on a custom field.

| Metric                         |     Before |      After |
| :----------------------------- | ---------: | ---------: |
| Hook wall time                 |     ~444 s |    ~173 ms |
| HTML columns scanned           |         95 |          5 |
| SQL queries issued             |         96 |          6 |

Key results:

- Hook wall time reduced from multi-minute to sub-second
  (~2,570× faster on the profiled database).
- Scan surface reduced from ~95 columns to a handful (1 +
  the form-capable HTML fields installed on the database, typically
  under 10).

opw-6086536

There have been multiple issues that happened when enabling/disabling lot valuation.

Odoo is flexible with the reservation/consumption of lots on StockQuant without lots.
This means that while your product is valued by lot/SN, you can still end up with a discrepancy between your lot quantity on hand and your lot quantity valued.

You can be in a situation where you don't have any negative lots on hand, but the valuation shows the negative amount.
If you tried to fix the discrepancy by setting the StockQuant to zero, you are blocked because a lot/SN is required.
If you tried to disable the valuation by lot configuration, it was allowed (because no negative quants on hand), but the valuation remaining data would be broken.

This PR aims to fix the methods '_svl_empty_stock' and '_svl_replenish_stock' by supporting negative lots.

OPW-4888289

---

One way to break the lot valuation:

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/b5f0d8c5-d798-4110-9564-951d0be9dcc6

---

After this PR:
- `_svl_empty_stock` simply set the valuation for the lot/product to 0, it's not an OUT/IN svl, and no need to call `_run_fifo` or `_run_fifo_vacuum` (perf++).
- The user can enable/disable lot valuation with negative lots
- When enabling the lot valuation, the lot valuation will be replenished even if the global quantity is 0.
- The user can disable lot valuation when they have a quant without lot.
- The user can NOT enable lot valuation when they have a quant without lot.

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

When a mailing is managed by a marketing automation campaign, its target domain is dynamically handled by the campaign's activities. If a user clicks the "Retry" button directly on the mailing template, it bypasses the campaign filters and queues the mailing for the entire target model, causing unintended mass spam.

This commit fixes the issue by:
1. Raising a UserError in `action_retry_failed` if the mailing is linked to marketing automation (`use_in_marketing_automation`).
2. Hiding the "Retry" button in the frontend view to prevent confusion.
3. Adding a unit test to ensure this edge case is caught in the future.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Create a marketing campaign with a filter and an email activity.
2. Run the activity and ensure at least one email trace fails.
3. Open the mailing template via the "Templates" smart button.
4. Click the "Retry" button on the template form.
5. The mailing is placed in the standard queue, bypassing the domain and targeting all records of the underlying model.

OPW-6220106

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119391
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118759

When a mailing is managed by a marketing automation campaign, its target domain is dynamically handled by the campaign's activities. If a user clicks the "Retry" button directly on the mailing template, it bypasses the campaign filters and queues the mailing for the entire target model, causing unintended mass spam.

This commit fixes the issue by:
1. Raising a UserError in `action_retry_failed` if the mailing is linked to marketing automation (`use_in_marketing_automation`).
2. Hiding the "Retry" button in the frontend view to prevent confusion.
3. Adding a unit test to ensure this edge case is caught in the future.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Create a marketing campaign with a filter and an email activity.
2. Run the activity and ensure at least one email trace fails.
3. Open the mailing template via the "Templates" smart button.
4. Click the "Retry" button on the template form.
5. The mailing is placed in the standard queue, bypassing the domain and targeting all records of the underlying model.

OPW-6220106

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118759