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

The [commit] introduced the method for inverting the interval inside the given limits.
The method was failing for the following edge cases:
```python
>>> invert_intervals([(1, 2), (4, 5)], 0, 10)
result - [(2, 4), (5, 10)]
expected - [(0, 1), (2, 4), (5, 10)]?
>>> invert_intervals([(-2, -1)], 0, 10)
result - [(0, 10)]
expected - same
>>> invert_intervals([(11, 12)], 0, 10)
result - []
expected - [(0, 10)]
>>> invert_intervals([(-1, 1), (2, 5), (8, 12)], 0, 10)
result - [(1, 2), (5, 8)]
expected - same
>>> invert_intervals([(2, 5), (8, 12)], 0, 10)
result - [(5, 8)]
expected - [(0, 2), (5, 8)]
>>> invert_intervals([(2, 5), (11, 12)], 0, 10)
result - []
expected - [(0, 2), (5, 10)]
```

This commit fixes the function to correctly handle all the cases. The test cases are also added to test all the edge cases.

[commit]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/53450065be0c3ec9d648d4fd39ec3a9a912bd06c

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#268161
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#267917

## 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

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#268434
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265352

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] product_barcodelookup: avoid crash on invalid image URLs
**Steps to Reproduce:**
-  Install Sales module.
- Configure a valid Barcode Lookup API key.
- Create a product without an image.
- Set a barcode whose returned image URL is broken or returns HTTP 404
  (e.g. `8426904171073`).
- Select the product and trigger the server action:
  `Action -> Get Pictures from Barcode Lookup`

Issue:

**During image fetching:**

-  Barcode Lookup API successfully returns product data and image URLs.
- `_get_image_from_url()` attempts to download the image.
- The image URL responds with HTTP 404.
- `barcode_lookup_request()` returns a dict for non-200 responses.
-  `_get_image_from_url()` assumes the response is always a `requests.Response`
   object and directly accesses:  `response.status_code`
- This causes: `AttributeError: 'dict' object has no attribute 'status_code'`

**Root Cause:**
- `barcode_lookup_request()` returns inconsistent response types:
     - `requests.Response` for successful requests
     - `dict` for failed requests
- _get_image_from_url() does not handle the dict response before accessing
   response attributes.

**Solution:**
- Make barcode_lookup_request() always return a One Response
  object.
- Move the response validation to the callers instead of returning custom
  dict objects.

**Result:**
- No RPC crash when image URLs are invalid or return 404.
- Broken image URLs are safely ignored.

**OPW-6200749**

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#116925

The [commit] introduced the method for inverting the interval inside the given limits.
The method was failing for the following edge cases:
```python
>>> invert_intervals([(1, 2), (4, 5)], 0, 10)
result - [(2, 4), (5, 10)]
expected - [(0, 1), (2, 4), (5, 10)]?
>>> invert_intervals([(-2, -1)], 0, 10)
result - [(0, 10)]
expected - same
>>> invert_intervals([(11, 12)], 0, 10)
result - []
expected - [(0, 10)]
>>> invert_intervals([(-1, 1), (2, 5), (8, 12)], 0, 10)
result - [(1, 2), (5, 8)]
expected - same
>>> invert_intervals([(2, 5), (8, 12)], 0, 10)
result - [(5, 8)]
expected - [(0, 2), (5, 8)]
>>> invert_intervals([(2, 5), (11, 12)], 0, 10)
result - []
expected - [(0, 2), (5, 10)]
```

This commit fixes the function to correctly handle all the cases. The test cases are also added to test all the edge cases.

[commit]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/53450065be0c3ec9d648d4fd39ec3a9a912bd06c

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#268161
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#267917

## 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

**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

**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

[FIX] product_barcodelookup: avoid crash on invalid image URLs
**Steps to Reproduce:**
-  Install Sales module.
- Configure a valid Barcode Lookup API key.
- Create a product without an image.
- Set a barcode whose returned image URL is broken or returns HTTP 404
  (e.g. `8426904171073`).
- Select the product and trigger the server action:
  `Action -> Get Pictures from Barcode Lookup`

Issue:

**During image fetching:**

-  Barcode Lookup API successfully returns product data and image URLs.
- `_get_image_from_url()` attempts to download the image.
- The image URL responds with HTTP 404.
- `barcode_lookup_request()` returns a dict for non-200 responses.
-  `_get_image_from_url()` assumes the response is always a `requests.Response`
   object and directly accesses:  `response.status_code`
- This causes: `AttributeError: 'dict' object has no attribute 'status_code'`

**Root Cause:**
- `barcode_lookup_request()` returns inconsistent response types:
     - `requests.Response` for successful requests
     - `dict` for failed requests
- _get_image_from_url() does not handle the dict response before accessing
   response attributes.

**Solution:**
- Make barcode_lookup_request() always return a One Response
  object.
- Move the response validation to the callers instead of returning custom
  dict objects.

**Result:**
- No RPC crash when image URLs are invalid or return 404.
- Broken image URLs are safely ignored.

**OPW-6200749**

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#116925

[FIX] product_barcodelookup: avoid crash on invalid image URLs
**Steps to Reproduce:**
-  Install Sales module.
- Configure a valid Barcode Lookup API key.
- Create a product without an image.
- Set a barcode whose returned image URL is broken or returns HTTP 404
  (e.g. `8426904171073`).
- Select the product and trigger the server action:
  `Action -> Get Pictures from Barcode Lookup`

Issue:

**During image fetching:**

-  Barcode Lookup API successfully returns product data and image URLs.
- `_get_image_from_url()` attempts to download the image.
- The image URL responds with HTTP 404.
- `barcode_lookup_request()` returns a dict for non-200 responses.
-  `_get_image_from_url()` assumes the response is always a `requests.Response`
   object and directly accesses:  `response.status_code`
- This causes: `AttributeError: 'dict' object has no attribute 'status_code'`

**Root Cause:**
- `barcode_lookup_request()` returns inconsistent response types:
     - `requests.Response` for successful requests
     - `dict` for failed requests
- _get_image_from_url() does not handle the dict response before accessing
   response attributes.

**Solution:**
- Make barcode_lookup_request() always return a One Response
  object.
- Move the response validation to the callers instead of returning custom
  dict objects.

**Result:**
- No RPC crash when image URLs are invalid or return 404.
- Broken image URLs are safely ignored.

**OPW-6200749**

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#116925

## 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

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

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

Starting version 2.1.4 of markupsafe, they decided to adapt the `striptags` function to use in-python-loops instead of the original implemenation that relied on pre-compiled regex.

A problem has been spotted with qweb templates that used `striptags` with large inputs, which led to the investigation of this function and it was found that the old implementation is actually faster. In fact, the PR introducing this change in Markupsafe, made these claims with no benchmarks whatsoever: https://github.com/pallets/markupsafe/pull/413/changes 

The new implementation of markupsafe is O(N x M), where n is the number of tags and M being the length of the input string. The old regex approach does a single c-level scan to check the existence of the regex which is performing much better for varying input size.

The benchmark cases below are in the form `<case_description>_<number_of_tags>`. We can see that in the cases where the current implementation is slightly faster is when there are no tags in the input which can be explained by the fact that the while loops will simply exit early. The time lost in the regex implementation is likely due to the deeper call stack to scan for the regex. Apart from that, in the case of an unclosed tag, the regex implementation is also slower because it still needs to scan the entire line. However, in that case the time taken is a handful of milliseconds, so it's not really a performance regression there either.

Apart from that, the old implementation is consistently much more performant, for both small and large inputs.

Benchmarks:

| Case                                      | Regex ms | Current ms | Speedup |
|----------------------------------------------|----------|------------|---------|
| plain_text_50k_words                         | 3.020    | 2.627      | 0.9x ← current_implementation |
| unclosed_tag_then_50kb_text                  | 0.367    | 0.032      | 0.1x ← current_implementation |
| unclosed_tag_then_500kb_text                 | 3.787    | 0.273      | 0.1x ← current_implementation |
| multiple_unclosed_open_tags_then_50kb_text   | 18.912   | 0.371      | 0.0x ← current_implementation |
| multiple_unclosed_open_tags_then_500kb_text  | 189.007  | 8.209      | 0.0x ← current_implementation |
| unclosed_comment_then_500kb_text             | 7.276    | 0.412      | 0.1x ← current_implementation |
| 5k_small_tags                                | 0.986    | 22.096     | 22.4x ← regex_old_implementation |
| 20k_small_tags                               | 4.125    | 492.186    | 119.3x ← regex_old_implementation |
| 50k_small_tags                               | 12.658   | 5499.602   | 434.5x ← regex_old_implementation |
| 1k_nested_divs                               | 0.155    | 0.923      | 5.9x ← regex_old_implementation |
| 10k_nested_divs                              | 1.648    | 48.410     | 29.4x ← regex_old_implementation |
| 2k_tags_with_attrs                           | 1.058    | 12.013     | 11.4x ← regex_old_implementation |
| 20k_tags_with_attrs                          | 13.185   | 6068.755   | 460.3x ← regex_old_implementation |
| 2k_multiline_tags                            | 0.815    | 10.819     | 13.3x ← regex_old_implementation |
| 20k_multiline_tags                           | 8.939    | 4231.768   | 473.4x ← regex_old_implementation |
| 1k_comments                                  | 0.222    | 1.292      | 5.8x ← regex_old_implementation |
| 1k_comments_hiding_tags                      | 0.163    | 1.121      | 6.9x ← regex_old_implementation |
| 2k_mixed                                     | 0.278    | 2.392      | 8.6x ← regex_old_implementation |
| 10k_mixed                                    | 1.400    | 50.959     | 36.4x ← regex_old_implementation |
| qweb_shop_200_products                       | 0.907    | 7.880      | 8.7x ← regex_old_implementation |
| qweb_shop_1000_products                      | 4.296    | 194.647    | 45.3x ← regex_old_implementation |


This PR is needed because requirements.txt in Odoo specifies the following dependency:
`MarkupSafe==2.1.5 ; python_version >= '3.12' \# (Noble)`

This means that all versions running Ubuntu Noble, will be having the same issue introduced in version 2.1.4 of markupsafe.

opw-5999688

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#258643
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#257889

### 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

[FIX] product_barcodelookup: avoid crash on invalid image URLs
**Steps to Reproduce:**
-  Install Sales module.
- Configure a valid Barcode Lookup API key.
- Create a product without an image.
- Set a barcode whose returned image URL is broken or returns HTTP 404
  (e.g. `8426904171073`).
- Select the product and trigger the server action:
  `Action -> Get Pictures from Barcode Lookup`

Issue:

**During image fetching:**

-  Barcode Lookup API successfully returns product data and image URLs.
- `_get_image_from_url()` attempts to download the image.
- The image URL responds with HTTP 404.
- `barcode_lookup_request()` returns a dict for non-200 responses.
-  `_get_image_from_url()` assumes the response is always a `requests.Response`
   object and directly accesses:  `response.status_code`
- This causes: `AttributeError: 'dict' object has no attribute 'status_code'`

**Root Cause:**
- `barcode_lookup_request()` returns inconsistent response types:
     - `requests.Response` for successful requests
     - `dict` for failed requests
- _get_image_from_url() does not handle the dict response before accessing
   response attributes.

**Solution:**
- Make barcode_lookup_request() always return a One Response
  object.
- Move the response validation to the callers instead of returning custom
  dict objects.

**Result:**
- No RPC crash when image URLs are invalid or return 404.
- Broken image URLs are safely ignored.

**OPW-6200749**

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#116925

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