Version:
----------
- 18.0+


Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
1. Install *quality_control* module.
2. Go to *Settings* and enable *Storage Locations*.
3. Open Quality module go to the Quality control -> Quality points 
4. Create a *Quality Point* with:
  * *Product* set.
  * *Control per* set to *Quantity*.
  * *Operation* set to *Receipts*.
  * *Failure Location* set to *WH/Stock/Shelf1*.
5. Create a *Receipt* with demand of *2 units* for the product used in QP.
6. Mark the quality check as *To Do*.
7. Update the *Done Quantity* to *1*.
8. Open the quality check and click *Fail*.
9. Update the *Done Quantity* back to *2* and save.
10. Open the quality check again, click *Pass*, and validate the receipt.
11. Open the *Detailed Operations* to inspect move lines.

Issue:
------
* Both units (failed and passed) are moved to the *failure location*.

Cause:
------
When a user fails a move line via the QC wizard, the flow is:
  do_fail() → show_failure_message() → confirm_fail()
    → check._move_to_failure_location(failure_location_id, failed_qty)

Inside `_move_to_failure_location`, when `failed_qty == move_line.quantity`,
the condition:
 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/a33f580455a54a81d89a848f7b493d9dcc9ba2b2/quality_control/models/quality.py#L458
e.g. 1 == 1

was True even when `move.product_uom_qty = 2` (demand still 2). It only
compared the done quantities, ignoring that unfulfilled demand remained.
As a result, `move.location_dest_id` was set to the failure location.

Later, when the user increases the quantity from 1 to 2 on the move form,
the flow is:
_set_quantity → process_increase → _set_quantity_done → _prepare_move_line_vals
In `_prepare_move_line_vals` :
    'location_dest_id': self.location_dest_id.id,

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/47bf284e1e9d8be0d4255418e0a3f67c74fa5114/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1688

The new move line inherits `move.location_dest_id` directly, which at this
point is already the failure location. 

When the user then calls `do_pass()` on the second unit, `do_pass()` only
writes `quality_state = 'pass'` and never touches `location_dest_id`. So
the second (passed) move line silently retains the failure location.

Solution:
---------
Add the guard `move.product_uom_qty <= move_line.quantity` to the condition
so the entire move's destination is only redirected when there is genuinely
no remaining unfulfilled demand:

When demand > done qty, the else-branch runs instead: it reduces the
original move's demand and creates a new separate move pointing to the
failure location, leaving the original move's `location_dest_id` pointing
to stock. Any subsequent move lines created on the original move therefore
correctly inherit the stock destination.

---

opw-6080871

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119917
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#112859

#### Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:
Opening the Asset Depreciation Schedule report with a period comparison enabled crashes with KeyError: 'no_format' when prefix grouping is active (large number of assets in one account group). The report becomes unusable for affected customers.

#### Current behavior before PR:
_regroup_lines_by_name_prefix sums each subline column by indexing prefix_subline['columns'][i]['no_format'] directly. Empty columns are built as {} by _build_column_dict (both col_value and col_data are None), so they have no 'no_format' key. With a comparison period enabled, an asset that has no value in the comparison period produces an empty column for that period; once prefix grouping fires (len(lines) >= prefix_groups_threshold, default 4000), the direct lookup hits that empty dict and raises KeyError: 'no_format'.

#### Desired behavior after PR is merged:
The prefix group total treats a missing 'no_format' as 0, matching the sibling caller in account_asset/models/account_assets_report.py that already guards with .get('no_format', 0). The report builds without crashing and the empty comparison column contributes 0 to the prefix group total.

opw-6225639

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119088

*=l10n_ch_hr_payroll,hr_payroll_account_iso20022

When clicking the create payment report button on a payslip for a Swiss company,
a traceback occurs if the ``hr_payroll_account_iso20022`` module is not installed.

Steps to reproduce the error:
- Install ``l10n_ch_hr_payroll`` module
- Switch to CH Company
- Create an Employee and running contract for it
- Go to Payroll > Payslip > All payslips > Create a new payslip > Set the employee > Confirm > Create payment report

Traceback:
```py
ValueError: Wrong value for hr.payroll.payment.report.wizard.export_format: 'iso20022_ch'
```

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/7792926504a823590fbbe574a96994002a92fc17/l10n_ch_hr_payroll/models/hr_payslip.py#L383 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/7792926504a823590fbbe574a96994002a92fc17/l10n_ch_hr_payroll/models/hr_payslip_run.py#L13
Here, ``iso20022_ch`` is passed as ``export_format``,
However, ``iso20022_ch`` is added to the selection field in the ``hr_payroll_account_iso20022`` module at [1].
When that module is not installed, the selection value does not exist, leading to the above error.

[1]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/7792926504a823590fbbe574a96994002a92fc17/hr_payroll_account_iso20022/wizard/hr_payroll_payment_report_wizard.py#L11

sentry-7391832811

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119666
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#113277

This PR is one of many triggered by responses from Luxembourg auditors. See PR #113316 for a full list of these PRs.

As described in PR #117799, the \CustomerID and \SupplierID elements on \Transaction\Line elements is determined by a partner's `customer_rank` and `supplier_rank`.  This is a binary designation, one or the other.

The Luxembourg FAIA report requires that less than 30% of \Transaction\Line elements with payable accounts (class 6) can not have \SupplierID. The same applies for \Transaction\Line elements with receivable accounts (class 7) and the \CustomerID element.

TSB clarified that any partner on an receivable or payable line should be added to the Customer list or Supplier list respectively https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/100749#issuecomment-3655127511. In addition, I verified that Luxembourg's analysis of four separate FAIA files (from ticket 5427296) aligns with this expectation. 

<img width="1322" height="690" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/1a82f99e-5b32-4dbb-96e1-1b25bab2629b" />

This commit adds partners to the \Supplier and \Customer lists if they have any payable or receivable lines, respectively. It also picks between the \CustomerID and \SupplierID based on a line's `account_type`. This logic is applied to `account_saft` and updates the other, country-specific SAFT reports where appropriate. 

It also retains the previous `customer_rank` and `supplier_rank` logic as a fallback for older XML reports and for accounts other than `asset_receivable` or `liability_payable`.

opw-6118024

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119098
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118714