### Issue
When setting the partial deductibility percentage to 99% on a vendor bill line, the system incorrectly treats it as 100% deductible and completely ignores the non-deductible part

Additionally, changing the deductibility percentage on a line with taxes does not trigger an update of the
non-deductible tax journal items, leaving the private part taxes unchanged

### Cause
In the tax recomputation mechanism, `float_compare` was wrongly configured with `precision_rounding=2` instead of `precision_digits=2` when checking the `deductible_amount` field

This rounding error caused 99.00 to be evaluated as equal to 100.00, skipping the creation of the non-deductible line

Furthermore, `_sync_tax_lines` relies on `get_base_line_tracked_fields` to detect modifications that require a tax recalculation

This tracked field list only included price, quantity, and discount. Modifying the deductibility percentage did not trigger any sync, preventing the non-deductible tax lines from adjusting

### Fix
To fix the synchronization, `deductible_amount` is added to the tracked fields for invoices
This straightforward approach is preferred here for simplicity
However, a more restrictive condition may be needed for example only check it on lines with taxes

### Steps to reproduce
- Install `account`
- Create a Vendor Bill  (Price: 1000$, Taxes: 15%, Professional %: 50)
- Check the Journal Items tab to see the Private Part line at 500$ debit and Private Part (taxes) line at 75$ debit
- Change the Professional % field on the invoice line to 75 Before the fix, the Private Part (taxes) line remains at 75$ debit
- Change the Professional % field on the invoice line to 99 Before the fix, the private part lines completely disappear instead of adapting to 1%

opw-6245909

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#267427

Steps to reproduce:
===================
1. Go to a product page > edit mode
2. Extra Media > Add, upload an image
3. Open another product page in edit mode
4. Extra Media > Add

=> The image uploaded on the first product is not listed

Cause:
======
The way the extra media is uploaded changed with the saas-18.4 builder
refactoring.

Before saas-18.4, "Extra Media > Add" opened `AttachmentMediaDialog`
directly, without any resId/resModel
(website_sale/static/src/js/website_sale.editor.js, addImages). Those
empty props flowed down to `ImageSelector`, which uploads the file with
`resModel: this.props.resModel` / `resId: this.props.resId`.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/3853ec5e2029ddf9287bb928d94188eb8687f5bc/addons/web_editor/static/src/components/media_dialog/image_selector.js#L164-L170
As both were undefined. The image was therefore created public and
shared across all product pages.

After saas-18.4, the dialog is opened through `openMediaDialog`, which
now initialises `MediaDialog` with the resId/resModel fetched from
`getRecordInfo()` (a path that did not exist before).
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/96b7eed9153eab60288d1624252df6f90ea9505e/addons/html_editor/static/src/main/media/media_plugin.js#L229
For a product page this resolves to res_model "product.template" and
the product's id so the upload creates a private attachment bound to
that single product. The media dialog only lists attachments matching
the current record, so the image never appears on other product pages.

Solution:
=========
Pass resModel "ir.ui.view" / resId false when opening the media dialog.
so the upload saves the extra images as public website assets again.

opw-6134118

**Issue**
Reducing the PO quantity after performing a partial receipt, in multi-step receipts warehouse
can incorrectly update the remaining receipt quantity.

**Steps to reproduce**
- Setup 2-route receipt warehouse (Inventory > Configuration > Warehouse Management > Warehouses)
- Create a PO for 35 units and confirm it
- Click on receive products, set received quantity to 10 and create a backorder
- Validate the next transfer
- Go back to the PO and change the quantity to 20
- Check the receipt demand
-> The backorder picking demand become 35 instead of 10

**Cause**
Updating the quantity of a purchase order line, also updates the related picking:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5fc1e34d174f7f61d692d086d0ff65fbfc72b013/addons/purchase_stock/models/purchase_order_line.py#L120
It updates the picking associated to the backorder since the other one is done:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5fc1e34d174f7f61d692d086d0ff65fbfc72b013/addons/purchase_stock/models/purchase_order_line.py#L185-L187
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5fc1e34d174f7f61d692d086d0ff65fbfc72b013/addons/purchase_stock/models/purchase_order_line.py#L197
This ultimately calls:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5fc1e34d174f7f61d692d086d0ff65fbfc72b013/addons/purchase_stock/models/purchase_order_line.py#L228
To compute the new demand for the picking, it retrieves the `move_dest`:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5fc1e34d174f7f61d692d086d0ff65fbfc72b013/addons/purchase_stock/models/purchase_order_line.py#L240
To compute `qty_to_push`:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5fc1e34d174f7f61d692d086d0ff65fbfc72b013/addons/purchase_stock/models/purchase_order_line.py#L247-L249
However, since we are in a 2-route receipt setup, `move_dest` is the move from Input to stock for the done picking.
Thus, `qty_to_push` is `20 - 10 = 10` instead of `20 - 35 = -15`

**Solution**
The previous logic assumes a pull flow, where downstream (move_dest_ids) quantities are always up-to-date and can be used as the source of truth to recompute demand.
In push flows (e.g., multi-step receipts), this assumption does not hold. 
To fix this, we instead base the computation on the quantity of the current moves (qty) if nothing has to be attached. 

**Additional information**
Known limitation: this does not address inconsistencies in return flows. When there're returns, units 
define in the pol and the one define in the sum of the picking can diverge, thus this pr won't fix that.

opw-5512172

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263294
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#248626

Bug introduced in: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/e2efdf75f67e631ed7622bb01c127120e639f6c5

Steps to reproduce: Clear the Warehouse field (set it to False) Create a
purchase order Set "Deliver To" to the operation type with no warehouse
Add any product Confirm the PO → TypeError is raised

Steps to reproduce the bug:
- Have at least 2 warehouses
- Go to Inventory > Configuration > Operation Types > Receipts
    - Clear the Warehouse field (set it to False)

- Create a purchase order:
    - Set "Deliver To" to the operation type with no warehouse
    - Add any product
    - Try to confirm the PO

Problem:
A traceback is triggered:
```   return self.parent_path.startswith(other_location.parent_path)
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
TypeError: startswith first arg must be str or a tuple of str, not bool
```

`_get_final_location_record` computes `wh_stock_loc` from
`picking_type_id.warehouse_id.lot_stock_id`. When `warehouse_id`
is False (a valid configuration, operation types can be detached from
any warehouse), `lot_stock_id` short-circuits to False

Solution:
guard the _child_of call with not wh_stock_loc. When the
picking type has no warehouse, wh_stock_loc is falsy and there is
nothing to compare against, so the method falls back to
default_location_dest_id (the only destination available).

opw-6253817

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#268317

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