## Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses

The “Configuration” menu item defined by the *Contracts* module uses a very low sequence value, causing menu ordering conflicts when other modules (e.g. [OCA](https://github.com/OCA/partner-contact/pull/2202/files)) add menu items in the same section.  

This affects not only external modules but also internal ones that add menu items under *Contacts*.

## Current behavior before PR

When other modules add new menu items to *Contacts*, the *Configuration* menu moves out of its intended last position, breaking Odoo’s default menu hierarchy.

<img width="467" height="148" alt="Behavior before PR:" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/4cb6e3bb-00c0-4636-87de-c51b572dc42c" />

## Desired behavior after PR is merged

The sequence of the *Configuration* menu item is adjusted so that it always remains last, aligning with Odoo’s default menu hierarchy and avoiding friction between modules.

<img width="467" height="148" alt="Behavior after PR is merged" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/314c2556-5f2b-403d-af8d-ab550bff41a9" />



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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#234909

Before this fix:
The credit limit warning calculation only considered credit notes but ignored outstanding bank payments 
when computing the partner's effective outstanding balance. For example, if a customer had a credit limit
of 1,000 and an invoice of 2,000 was created, then a bank payment of 1,500 was received, the warning 
would still incorrectly appear showing the customer exceeded their limit (2,000 > 1,000), even though the
actual outstanding amount was only 500.

After this fix:
The credit limit warning now properly includes outstanding bank payments in the calculation. Two cases 
are handled:
- Bank payments received but not yet matched to any invoice, these are identified by their open suspense
  account entry and deducted from the partner's outstanding exposure.
- Bank payments already matched to the invoice, the reconciled amount is read from the invoice's receivable
  line and deducted accordingly.

So with this fix, after a 1,500 bank payment, the system correctly recognises the outstanding amount as 500
and does not show a warning since it is within the 1,000 credit limit.

task-5427613

### Issue:
In DATEV customer and supplier exports, partners outside the European Union still had the `EU-Land` and `EU-UStID` fields filled

However, these fields must only be used for EU countries

For non-EU countries, the `Land` field should be filled instead, and is required whenever the country is not Germany https://developer.datev.de/en/file-format/details/datev-format/format-description/debitorskreditors

### Cause:
`_l10n_de_datev_get_partner_list` did not distinguish between EU and non-EU countries

As a result, any partner with a VAT number could populate `EU-Land` and `EU-UStID`, even if the country was outside the EU

Greece also requires a special case: its VAT prefix is `EL` so the `EU-Land` too, while the country code used in `Land` must remain `GR`

### Steps to reproduce:
- Install `l10n_de_reports` and switch to the DE company
- Create a customer in Switzerland with a valid VAT number
- Create and confirm an invoice for that customer
- Go to Accounting → Audit Reports → General Ledger
- Select the full year
- From the gear menu, export DATEV DATA (zip)
- Open the `EXTF_customer_accounts` file

### Before the fix:
`EU-Land` and `EU-UStID` are filled for the Swiss customer, while `Land` is empty

### After the fix:
`EU-Land` and `EU-UStID` are empty for non-EU countries such as Switzerland, while `Land` is correctly filled

`Land` is filled using the following priority:
1. Partner country_code
2. Country extracted from the VAT number
3. Empty

opw-5902565

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#113835

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#259846

### Steps to reproduce:

- In the settings enable: "Units of Measure & Packagings", "Storage Locations"
- Create a product in units and register 1 unit in stock
- Inventory > Operations > Adjustments > Physical Inventory
- Select your line and request a count > Set Current Value
- Inventory > Configurations > units of measures > UOM categories
- Select unit and archive it
- Go to the barcode app > Click Count inventory
### > Owl error: Uncaught promise

### Cause of the issue:

Since the uom used on the quant is archived, it is not found by the search used to fill the barcodeCache:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/26546bcd3beebc7f65ce08385441b6284b46598e/stock_barcode/static/src/components/main.js#L209-L213 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/26546bcd3beebc7f65ce08385441b6284b46598e/stock_barcode/models/stock_quant.py#L104-L106 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/26546bcd3beebc7f65ce08385441b6284b46598e/stock_barcode/static/src/components/main.js#L229 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/26546bcd3beebc7f65ce08385441b6284b46598e/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L37-L39 However, if the uom is not present in the barcode cache the `BarcodeQautnModel` will fail to createLinesState whihc raises a missing error:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/26546bcd3beebc7f65ce08385441b6284b46598e/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_quant_model.js#L712 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/26546bcd3beebc7f65ce08385441b6284b46598e/stock_barcode/static/src/lazy_barcode_cache.js#L107-L110

opw-6250090

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118877
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118813

**Step to reproduce :**

1. Create a deliverable product with a sales tax.
2. Create another product with a different sales tax.
3. Publish both products on the eCommerce website.
4. Create a discount program.
5. Add both products to the shopping cart.
6. Apply the discount code.
7. Proceed to checkout.

**Issue :**

Applying a discount on multiple products with different taxes causes an infinite reload cycle during checkout.

**Reason :**

The reload is supposed to sync the discount lines in the back-end with the discount lines displayed during checkout. If the number of lines don't match, a reload is triggered.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/18.0/addons/website_sale_loyalty/static/src/js/checkout.js#L22-L24

After the fix introduced in:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/248215

However, when a discount is applied to products with different taxes, the corresponding reward lines are still categorized as `discounted_lines` instead of `groupable_lines`. As a result, they continue to be processed individually rather than being grouped by reward.
    
This leads to a mismatch between the backend, which generates one discount line per tax combination, and the frontend, which expects a single discount entry per reward. Consequently, the checkout page continuously reloads while attempting to synchronize both states.
    
**Solution:**
    
When a discount applies to products with different tax configurations, the corresponding reward lines should be included in `groupable_lines` rather than `discounted_lines`. This ensures that discount lines are grouped by
`reward_id` consistently on both the frontend and backend, preventing the checkout reload loop.

opw-6210411

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265740

### What & why

`odoo db load` always calls `restore_db(..., copy=True)`, which forces the
generation of a new `dbuuid` via `ir.config_parameter.init(force=True)`. That is
the right default when *duplicating* a database, but it breaks the intended
behaviour when *moving* a database between servers: Enterprise subscription codes
are registered against the database UUID, so regenerating it deregisters the
moved database.

The web database manager already lets the user choose between copying and moving
(the `copy` flag of the `/web/database/restore` route), but the CLI exposed no
equivalent and forced a copy unconditionally. The CLI is the better tool for
server-to-server moves: it isn't subject to reverse-proxy upload/timeout limits
and can run unattended or interactively.

### Steps to reproduce the current limitation

1. On server A: `odoo db dump mydb mydb.zip` (Enterprise DB registered to its UUID)
2. On server B: `odoo db load mydb mydb.zip`
3. `database.uuid` has changed → the subscription is deregistered

### Fix

Add a `--move` flag to `odoo db load` that maps to `restore_db(copy=False)`,
keeping the original UUID. The default remains `copy=True`, so existing behaviour
is unchanged.

```sh
odoo db load mydb mydb.zip          # unchanged: restore as a copy (new UUID)
odoo db load --move mydb mydb.zip   # new: restore as a move (keep the UUID)
```

### Backport request

This would be greatly appreciated as a backport to 18.0, 17.0, and 16.0 as well.
Those are precisely the versions that ship the `odoo db` CLI subcommand, so the
fix is applicable to all of them — which is why the backport range is 16.0 → 19.0
and stops at 16.0.

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#268501