### Issue
When importing an electronic bill (such as a German XRechnung) that uses the Peppol EAS 'EM' (Email) with an email address as the endpoint, the import fails during the automatic partner creation

An error is logged in the chatter stating that the Peppol endpoint is not valid and should contain only letters and digits

Since 'EM' stands for Email, the system should allow the '@' character and validate the endpoint format

### Cause
While the export logic supported the 'EM' EAS, the validation flow triggered during automatic partner creation on import was too restrictive

The global regex `PEPPOL_ENDPOINT_INVALIDCHARS_RE` did not include the '@' character, causing the
validation to fail for any email address

Additionally, there was no specific format check implemented for the 'EM' EAS type to ensure the endpoint is a valid email string

### Steps to reproduce
- Install `account_edi_ubl_cii`
- Go to Accounting / Vendors / Bills
- Upload an electronic invoice containing an EM EAS and an email endpoint (you can use the added test file or the one from the ticket)

Before the fix, an error is raised in the chatter and the partner cannot be created automatically

opw-6205745

Steps to reproduce
1. Configure a Polish company with KSeF enabled.
2. Create a customer invoice using a tax tagged with K_21 (0% EU G, intra-Community supply of goods), K_12 (0% EU S, services taxed in the buyer's EU country) or Triangular Sale.
3. Send the invoice to KSeF and download the generated FA(3) XML.

Issue
The Podmiot1 (seller) block in the rendered FA(3) XML omits the PrefiksPodatnika element, see https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/89219a843545d8bb0cad6ea806a1167cee6289da/addons/l10n_pl_edi/data/fa3_template.xml#L34-L42. According to the official Ministry of Finance documentation (https://ksef.podatki.gov.pl/media/4u1bmhx4/information-sheet-on-the-fa-3-logical-structure.pdf, page 11), this conditional field must carry the value "PL" when the invoice documents:
- the intra-Community supply of goods,
- the provision of services referred to in Article 100 sec. 1 item 1 of the Act for EU VAT taxpayers,
- the supply carried out under a simplified triangular transaction by the second taxpayer (Article 135 sec. 1 item 4 (b) and (c)). The XSD marks the element as optional (minOccurs="0", fixed="PL") so KSeF accepts the XML, but the seller's tax reporting is still legally non-compliant for the three cases above, and the field is missing from the KSeF PDF viewer rendering.

opw-6213178

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264659

**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

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

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
- Install `stock` module
- Enable `Storage Locations` from Inventory settings
- Create a tracked storable product with on-hand 8 units in `Shelf 1`
- Create Delivery 1 for 5 units and click `Mark as To Do`
- Create Delivery 2 for 5 units and click `Mark as To Do`
- Verify reservations:
  - Delivery 1 reserves 5 units
  - Delivery 2 reserves remaining 3 units
- Relocate all 8 units from `Shelf 1` to `Shelf 2` using the `Relocate` action from `stock quant`
- Reopen both deliveries

Issue:
------
After relocating stock between internal locations, reservations are reassigned
in the wrong order:
- Delivery 2 becomes fully reserved with 5 units
- Delivery 1 is reduced to 3 reserved units

This incorrectly swaps the original reservation priority between deliveries.

Cause:
------
The relocation wizard starts from:
`stock.quant.relocate.action_relocate_quants()`
which calls `move_quants()`:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/d3eebbd1c27e8a039bb55cdf2a82d464e06ffa8c/addons/stock/wizard/stock_quant_relocate.py#L70

`move_quants()` validates an internal stock move through `_action_done()`:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/d3eebbd1c27e8a039bb55cdf2a82d464e06ffa8c/addons/stock/models/stock_quant.py#L1572

During validation, `_synchronize_quant()` moves the stock quantity from
`Shelf 1` to `Shelf 2`.

However, the already reserved delivery move lines still reference `Shelf 1`.
This temporarily makes the source quant negative (`available_qty < 0`),
triggering `_free_reservation()`:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/d3eebbd1c27e8a039bb55cdf2a82d464e06ffa8c/addons/stock/models/stock_move_line.py#L695-L700

Inside `_free_reservation()`, move lines are ordered using
`current_picking_first`:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/d3eebbd1c27e8a039bb55cdf2a82d464e06ffa8c/addons/stock/models/stock_move_line.py#L816-L821

Since both deliveries share the same scheduled date, the fallback ordering
uses `-cand.id`, causing Delivery 2 (higher id) to be processed before
Delivery 1 (lower id).

The reservation cleanup therefore happens in this order:
- Remove Delivery 2 reservation (3 qty)
- Remove Delivery 1 reservation (5 qty)

The corresponding moves are then added to `move_to_reassign`
in the same order:
`[Delivery 2, Delivery 1]`
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/d3eebbd1c27e8a039bb55cdf2a82d464e06ffa8c/addons/stock/models/stock_move_line.py#L849

Later, `move_to_reassign._action_assign()` processes the moves in recordset
order:
- Delivery 2 reserves 5 units first
- Delivery 1 only gets the remaining 3 units

As a result, reservation priority is unintentionally reversed after relocation.

Fix:
----
Before calling `_action_assign()`, reverse `move_to_reassign` 

This ensures reassignment preserves the original reservation order:
- Delivery 1 is reassigned first and recovers 5 units
- Delivery 2 receives the remaining 3 units

The reservation state therefore remains consistent before and after
internal stock relocation.

---

opw-6218256

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265169