Currently, the system restricts fiscal document types for both sales and 
purchases based on the company’s VAT affiliation, which prevents 
valid vendor bills from being recorded.

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install the `l10n_gt_edi` module and switch to a `GT company`.
- Navigate to Accounting > Vendors > Bills.
- Create a vendor bill.
- Try to select a document type such as `FPEQ` or `FCAP`.

**Observation:**
The system hides valid vendor document types (e.g., `FPEQ`, `FCAP`) 
if they do not match the company’s VAT affiliation.

**Root Cause:**
At [1], the method `_compute_l10n_gt_edi_available_doc_types` 
filters document types using the company’s VAT affiliation 
(`l10n_gt_edi_vat_affiliation`) for all move types.

This logic is correct for sales (where the company is the issuer), 
but incorrect for purchases (where the vendor determines the document 
type). As a result, valid purchase document types are wrongly excluded.

**Fix:**
This commit updates the computation logic to:
- Apply affiliation-based filtering only for sales (`out_*`).
- Bypass the restriction for purchases (`in_*`), allowing all valid document types.

This ensures that vendor bills can include any legally valid document 
type regardless of the company’s affiliation, while preserving the 
existing restrictions for sales workflows.

[1]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/7792926504a823590fbbe574a96994002a92fc17/l10n_gt_edi/models/account_move.py#L162-L166

opw-6099863

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#113133

Steps to reproduce
1. With a Mexican POS configured, create a POS order and sign a Global Invoice for it.
2. Open a new session and partially return the order; close the session.
3. On the original order, cancel the Global Invoice through the CFDI page.
4. Try to create a new Global Invoice for the original order.

Issue
The wizard raises "Orders <REFUND-NAME> are already sent or not eligible for CFDI."

Validating the refund auto-signs an `invoice_sent` CFDI on the refund pos.order because its parent is `global_sent`, see `_l10n_mx_edi_check_autogenerate_cfdi_refund` at https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/5af8048f0b0956a024d7eaeb10600eec74bdf3ee/l10n_mx_edi_pos/models/pos_order.py#L98. Cancelling the GI only flips its own document to `ginvoice_cancel`; the refund's `invoice_sent` doc stays untouched, so the refund's computed `l10n_mx_edi_cfdi_state` stays `'sent'`. The chain check in `_l10n_mx_edi_check_orders_for_global_invoice` at https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/5af8048f0b0956a024d7eaeb10600eec74bdf3ee/l10n_mx_edi_pos/models/pos_order.py#L184 then rejects the refund as already sent and the new GI cannot be created.

opw-6181136

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120100
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117211

### Note:
**THIS IS A BACKPORT OF** https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/107556
Some edits were made to the tests so that they match Odoo v18.0

### Steps to reproduce:
- Create a new marketing campaign with two activities
- Set them to occur some number of days after the beginning
- Save the campaign and start it
- Modify one of the activities to occur some number of days after the other activity and save
- Modify the child activity by changing the number of days after its parent that it should run and save
> IndexError: tuple index out of range

### Issue:
The trace related to the child activity has no parent when trying to reschedule it in `_update_schedule_date`. This causes an issue when trying to get the first mailing_trace_ids using index 0 in this line:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/3e788e28dc76c928935d874e4e5a18d467c65539/marketing_automation/models/marketing_trace.py#L149

### Fix:
Prevent the activity hierarchy to be modified on started campaigns. We also change the indexing to avoid further out of range issue and properly default on the participant create value.

Trying to match existing traces to their parents has too many edge cases when trying to avoid duplicates, and might often need to reset the whole trace chain to work properly. This approach avoids user mistakes on running campaigns, but if a user tries to launch a test (even on draft campaign) he won't be able to modify the hierarchy further without deleting/recreating some activities/traces. So we should ignore this for test traces, but it could impact the behavior between test and actual executions.

opw-6251614

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118994

Leaving a session open and idle (page open, no activity at all) eventually pops an error dialog:

    UncaughtPromiseError > RequestPendingError
    REGISTER request already in progress, waiting for final response
        at Registerer.register (sip.js)
        at Registerer.register (registerer.js)
        at UserAgent.attemptReconnection (user_agent_service.js)

When the WebSocket transport drops while a REGISTER is in flight (which happens on an idle tab: SIP.js sends a periodic re-REGISTER before the registration expires, and the socket may be closed by an idle timeout or by the machine going to sleep in the meantime), the final response never comes back. SIP.js only clears its internal `waiting` flag from the REGISTER response callbacks (onAccept/onReject/onRedirect); it is never reset on transport loss or request timeout. The Registerer is then stuck `waiting` forever, and every subsequent register() rejects with a RequestPendingError.

On top of that, our wrapper's register() did not return the SIP.js promise, and attemptReconnection() called it without awaiting, so the rejection escaped the surrounding try/catch and surfaced as an unhandled promise rejection. Worse, the WebSocket error was resolved right after, so the user appeared reconnected while VoIP registration was actually dead until the page was reloaded.

This commit makes register() recreate the underlying SIP.js Registerer when it is stuck `waiting` (a clean instance starts with waiting=false), and return the promise so callers can await it. attemptReconnection() now awaits it, so any rejection goes through the existing retry/back-off logic instead of bubbling up as an uncaught error.

The recreation is intentionally conditional: disposing a healthy registerer would send an unregister (REGISTER expires=0) racing with the fresh register (expires=600) and could leave us unregistered, so we only recreate when a request is actually stuck.

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120107
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119701

Currently, an error will occur when user multi edits name of projects.

Steps to replicate:
- Install `documents_project` and open any project's settings using kebab menu (3 dots).
- Click new > name `Test` > open settings page and unselect `Documents` > Save.
- Click new > name `Test1` > Save.
- From the list view select `Test` and `Test1` and edit their name.

Error:
```
ValueError: Expected singleton: project.project(9, 10)
```

Cause:
- During `multi-edit`, self contains multiple project records.
- When only one of the selected projects has a documents folder (i.e. `use_documents` enabled), `self.documents_folder_id` contains that single folder, making `len(self.documents_folder_id.project_ids) == 1` to be True [1].
- The condition then proceeds to access `self.name` on the `multi-recordset`, raising singleton.

Solution:
- Avoided accessing `self.name` on a `multi-recordset` during multi-edit.
- Filtered projects individually and updated the document folders using the name in vals.

[1]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/3c2985ca6011700c271ed14e40e08c89be822753/documents_project/models/project_project.py#L101

sentry-7452096418

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119060

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Install l10n_mx_hr_payroll.
2. Create an employee with a contract date over 35 years ago (e.g., 1985).
3. Create a payslip for this employee.
4. Click on "Compute Sheet".

```Error: KeyError(36) while evaluating```

**Cause:**
The rule parameter [rule_parameter_holiday_table](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/c02c4571bb7db7197b07539ba390d4d20fdce9fe/l10n_mx_hr_payroll/data/hr_rule_parameters_data.xml#L722-L758) defines values
only up to 35 years. Seniority exceeding this range causes a KeyError.

**Solution:**
Extended the `rule_parameter_holiday_2024` table from 35 to 60 years,
following the Mexican Federal Labor Law (LFT) reform formula
(+2 days every 5-year milestone from year 6 onwards).

**NOTE:**(Alternative approach)
```python
@staticmethod
def _get_mx_holiday_days(years_worked):
    if years_worked <= 0:
        return 0
    if years_worked <= 5:
        return 12 + (years_worked - 1) * 2
    five_year_periods = (years_worked - 6) // 5
    return 22 + five_year_periods * 2
    
  ```
This approach removes the need for XML data maintenance and handles
all future seniority values mathematically without any cap issues.
  
  
opw-6090590

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#113536