Steps to reproduce:
------------------------------------------
1. Install Time Off module
2. Create a new Time Off type with Payroll Code (e.g, TEST)
3. Duplicate the Time Off type

Observation:
------------------------------------------
User Error raised:
```
Cannot insert 'Test (copy)':
Work entry type 'Test' of code 'TEST', with no country assigned, already exists.
```

Issue:
------------------------------------------
When you duplicate a Time off type, Odoo's default `copy()` method doesn't modify the code field. The `_check_code_unicity` constraint enforces that each combination of `code` and `country_id` must be unique. Since your duplicated record has the same `code`, the same `country_id` and a different `name`. The constraint correctly raises an error.

Solution:
------------------------------------------
Override the `copy()` method to automatically append a suffix to the code field when duplicating, similar to how the name field gets '(copy)' appended.

opw-6225931

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265144

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
1. Install Fleet with demo data.
2. Create a contract for a vehicle (A) with a recurring cost of 1000
 and "Monthly" frequency.
3. Go to Reporting > Costs and verify the monthly cost
 (it shows 1000).
4. Create another contract for the same vehicle (A) with a
 recurring cost of 50 and "Monthly" frequency.
5. Check the monthly cost again.

Issue:
------
The reported cost is incorrect. Instead of 1050 (1000 + 50), it shows 2100.

Cause:
------
The query uses multiple LEFT JOINs on the contract table, including:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/9ca36dbe53692309bac84329de3b54a1c510cce0/addons/fleet/report/fleet_report.py#L103

These joins overlap and produce duplicate rows for the same
vehicle and month, which results in inflated cost totals.

Solution:
---------
Replace the multiple LEFT JOINs with a single LATERAL join.
This ensures the contract table is processed once per vehicle per month and
avoids duplication, resulting in correct totals.

**Before:**
<img width="940" height="609" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/e5b3e747-1135-4674-97c9-4e4fd9986dfd" />

**After:**
<img width="1053" height="590" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/f0df3819-07fb-4de5-aab3-5b4c6f10d213" />



opw-6024132





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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#256051

Currently, error occurs when user removes date on Accrued Expense Entry wizard.

Steps to replicate:
- Install `purchase` and `accountant` with demo.
- Open any Purchase Order > Click on cog menu > Accrued Expense Entry.
- Remove value from `date` and click else where.

Error:
```
  File '/home/odoo/odoo19/community/addons/account/wizard/accrued_orders.py', line 67, in _compute_reversal_date
    if not record.reversal_date or record.reversal_date <= record.date:
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
TypeError: '<=' not supported between instances of 'datetime.date' and 'bool'

```

Cause:
- As the user removed value from `date`, [here] `record.date` is received as False.
- As a result the comparison `record.reversal_date <= record.date` causes this error to occur.

Solution:
- Added a conditional check for `date` before the date comparison.

[here]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/8791cdcd89ea3cb56b1fac63b3e2ffbd2956a912/addons/account/wizard/accrued_orders.py#L67

No ID
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#269418
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262568

Have an x2many field displayed as a list in a form view. In the arch, the x2many form view **isn't** inlined. In that x2many form view, there's a properties field.

When a record is clicked, `extendRecord` is called to add the new fields (those of the form) into `this.fields` and those fields are fetched. If there're properties in the property definition, fake fields are created to represent them (see `_processProperties`). However, because of extendRecord, the static list and the record don't share the same reference to the `fields` object. As a consequence, the `fields` object of the static list isn't updated with the fake property fields.

If the user closes the record, and opens/closes it again, there's a crash, because the record is re-updated with the fields of the static list, and thus doesn't know about those property fields anymore.

This commit fixes the issue by ensuring that we keep the same `fields` object when extending a record, s.t. the list and all its records always share the same object.

Bug originally reported here: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/268312


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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#269717

Issue:
----------------------------------------
When in a negative timezone, the "Out of Office until..." text in discuss shows the day before.

Steps to reproduce:
----------------------------------------
- Change the timezone of the user to "America/Toronto" for example
- Have an employee currently on leave until tomorrow
- Open discuss to chat with this employee
- The "Out of Office until..." shows today's date

Cause:
----------------------------------------
When calling `toLocaleString()` without a timezone specified in the options, the date is converted to local time (in the browser's timezone).

Here `persona.out_of_office_date_end` is just a date, `deserializeDateTime()` converts it to a timestamp, so the same day at 0am. Then if the timezone is negative, the timestamp becomes an hour the previous day when calling `toLocaleString()`. The format we give `DateTime.DATE_MED` doesn't include hours, so we just display the previous date.

Solution:
----------------------------------------
Add `timeZone:"UTC"` in the options to avoid the timezone conversion.

opw-6252040

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#268886
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#267479

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

Steps to reproduce:
-----------------------
1 - Install the `purchase` and `stock` modules.
2 - Create a storable product with tracking enabled.
Set the Cost (standard price) to 50.
3 - Open the product form and go to the Purchase tab.
   * Add a vendor with:
   * Quantity: 2
   * Price: 10
 
4 - Create a Reordering Rule for this product:

   * Route: Buy
   * Trigger: Manual
   * To Order Quantity: 2
 
5 - Click on the Order button to generate a purchase order.
6 - Open the generated Purchase Order and verify the Unit Price
on the purchase order line.
7 - Open the same product and go to the Purchase tab.
In the existing vendor line, add an End Date lower than today so
the vendor pricelist becomes expired.
8 - Reopen the same reordering rule.
Change To Order Quantity to 1.
9 - Click on the Order button again

Issue:
-----
The generated purchase order line gets a Unit Price of 0
instead of keeping the product cost or a valid fallback price.

Root Cause:
--------------
- When clicking on `Order`, it triggers `action_replenish`, which calls the
procurement flow:
`_procure_orderpoint_confirm` → `run` → `run` → `_run_buy`.

- Inside `_run_buy`, the system checks whether a `purchase.order.line`
already exists. In this case, the PO line exists, so it calls
 `_update_purchase_order_line`.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/47ef8b75d0c90001b9989a95f09b962c5b286c53/addons/purchase_stock/models/stock_rule.py#L137

- In `_update_purchase_order_line`, the system tries to fetch a seller using
 `_select_seller`,
- which internally calls `_get_filtered_sellers`.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/47ef8b75d0c90001b9989a95f09b962c5b286c53/addons/product/models/product_product.py#L759

- However, if the seller's `end_date` is less than `today`,
 `_get_filtered_sellers` skips that seller and returns no valid seller.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/47ef8b75d0c90001b9989a95f09b962c5b286c53/addons/product/models/product_product.py#L731-L733

- As a result, `_update_purchase_order_line` does not find any seller and falls
back to setting `price_unit` to `0`, causing the purchase order line price to
be updated incorrectly.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/47ef8b75d0c90001b9989a95f09b962c5b286c53/addons/purchase_stock/models/stock_rule.py#L259

---

opw-6117461

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#269971
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262396

## Issue
When using the browser's dark mode, non-mandatory text fields in sign documents appear with a dark background, which does not match the aesthetic of the rest of the page.

## Steps to reproduce
1. Set your browser's theme to a dark theme (in Chrome, go to Settings > Appearance > Theme, chose a theme from the dark options)
2. Install Sign (`sign`)
3. Open a Sign template and add 3 Text fields:
    - Mandatory
    - Non-mandatory
    - Read-only (for comparison)
4. Click *Sign Now*
5. **The non-mandatory text field has a dark background.**

## Cause
Since a [PDF.js update](https://github.com/mozilla/pdf.js/commit/ae1cbc6a9ecc738d6777830488ad5481b97338bc), the `light dark` color-theme was added to `:root`. This means that the element will react to the settings of the browser and adapt its background and text color. In this case, there's no other `background-color` provided to mandatory fields, resulting in them using the dark color of the browser theme.

## Fix
We make the default background of text fields transparent then we update the selector of `.o_sign_sign_item_required` to prevent their `background-color` from being overwritten by that new transparent background.

|            | Before | After |
|------------|--------|-------|
| **Light mode** |    <img width="211" height="99" alt="6213059-before-light" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/c4c70394-c7c2-4dbf-92b9-c1362d1cf9c8" />    |   <img width="207" height="89" alt="6213059-after-light" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/63142be5-9f7d-4d5d-94e8-ef9428e1b778" />    |
| **Dark mode**  |    <img width="220" height="95" alt="6213059-before-dark" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/19149c3d-511e-407c-821e-f318f373368a" />    |    <img width="210" height="103" alt="6213059-after-dark" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/0b412d4f-061f-41b3-aae9-569b9a8219dc" />   |

opw-6213059

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117589

## Issues
When creating a new timesheet entry from the systray menu, that entry is added at the end of the list, which is inconvenient when the list gets long, as it requires to scroll through the entirety of it to see the most recent entry.

## Steps to reproduce
1. Install Timesheets (`timesheet_grid`)
2. Open the systray menu
3. Create two timesheet entries
4. The second (= most recent) entry appears below the first (= oldest) entry

## Cause
Since https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/5901619141c81085111f2ee65b54492abf1e324f the entries are sorted based on the create date in ascending orer. This means that the oldest entries appear at the top, and the most recent at the bottom. On top of that, new entries were added at the end of the list instead of the start.

## Test
The existing test `Creating a new timesheet places it at the top of the list` was only adding one entry to the list, thus was not properly testing **where** the new entries were added.

opw-6284059

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120258

**Steps to Reproduce**

1. Create a database on v19.3.
2. Install `hr` and `hr_payroll`.
3. Create or log in as a user who only has access rights for the Employee app (`hr`) and no Payroll access.
4. Go to **Employees → Configuration → Employee → Employee Types**. Opening the Employee Types menu raises the following error:

```python
You do not have enough rights to access the field "employee_type_id" on
Employee Contract (hr.version). Please contact your system administrator.

Operation: read
User: 2
Groups: allowed for groups 'Payroll / Assistant'
```

**Issue Description:**

The field `employee_type_id` is defined in both modules with different group restrictions:

* In `hr/models/hr_version.py`, the [field](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f7e87637d5c47047ebffda0f3c929c25022c3f27/addons/hr/models/hr_version.py#L184) is restricted to **HR Managers**.
* In `hr_payroll/models/hr_version.py`, the [field](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/acd831acd0f59f7b8c15bccfb6da0c3969fc3f6d/hr_payroll/models/hr_version.py#L41 ) is extended with the **Payroll / Assistant** group.
When both modules are installed, access to `hr.version.employee_type_id` requires Payroll permissions.

In v19.3, [PR #241780](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/241780/changes) introduced the `employee_count` [computation](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f7e87637d5c47047ebffda0f3c929c25022c3f27/addons/hr/models/hr_employee_type.py#L25 ) on `hr.employee.type`. During this computation, `_read_group()` is executed on `hr.employee` using the domain.

HR-only users (without hr_payroll.group_hr_payroll_user) cannot read the field, causing below traceback.

**Solution:**
Use `.sudo()` to bypass access control for the system-level computation. This allows:
- HR users without payroll rights to view employee type counts
- The computation to complete without access errors

**Traceback:**
```python
File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.3/addons/hr/models/hr_employee_type.py"
 line 25, in _compute_employee_count
    employee_count_by_employee_type = dict(self.env['hr.employee']._read_group(
...
File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.3/odoo/orm/models.py", line 2732, in
check_field_access
    raise AccessError(error_msg)

odoo.exceptions.AccessError: You do not have enough rights to access the field
"employee_type_id" on Employee Contract (hr.version).

Operation: read
User: 8
Groups: allowed for groups 'Payroll / Assistant'
```

opw-6246367
upg- 4302826
tbg- 2751

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

Current behavior before PR:

Desired behavior after PR is merged:




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

…unt number

When a provider returns an account without `account_number` (typical for Canadian banks, which do not use IBANs), the existing-journal search ran with `bank_account_number = False`. Because `bank_account_number` is a related field on `bank_account_id.account_number`, that search matched every bank journal in the user's allowed companies whose `bank_account_id` was unset.

If any of those journals was tied to a connected online link, the new sync was blocked with the misleading error "There's already a synchronized journal linked to this IBAN", even though no IBAN was involved.

Skip the search entirely when `account_number` is falsy: without an identifier there is nothing meaningful to dedup against, and the downstream code already handles `existing_journals` being empty by creating a fresh journal.

Note: when the provider omits `account_number`, a delete-and-recreate of the connection will now create a fresh journal rather than coincidentally reusing an unlinked empty-`bank_account_number` journal. That reuse path already failed (with a spurious "IBAN already connected" error) as soon as the user had more than one such journal, so the prior behavior was not reliable. The supported recovery path remains the reconnect button on the existing journal, which uses the `active_id` branch and is unchanged.

opw-6253563

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119848

Problem:
When printing an invoice for a Latin American (LATAM) company, the company's document layout is not used in the header of the invoice. For example, if an Argentinian company has set up a Bubble layout as its document layout, the header of the invoice will not have the bubble.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Install l10n_ar
2. Create an invoice using Electronic Sales Journal
3. Set document layout to Bubble in the company settings
4. Print the invoice
5. Notice that the header of the invoice does not have the bubble

Cause:
Most LATAM localizations use custom headers for their reports. In report_templates of l10n_latam_invoice_document, it checks if custom_header is set to decide whether to display the custom header. If custom_header is set, the div with class "header" will be hidden, and the custom header will be displayed after the div with class "header". Since the div with class "header" contains the background image that corresponds to the document layout, the background image will not be displayed when div with class "header" is hidden.

Solution:
Instead of hiding the entire div with class "header" when custom_header is set, only hide the table inside the header. This way, the background image of the document layout will still be displayed even when a custom header is used.

opw-6204062

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#267164

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
1. Install Fleet with demo data.
2. Create a contract for a vehicle (A) with a recurring cost of 1000
 and "Monthly" frequency.
3. Go to Reporting > Costs and verify the monthly cost
 (it shows 1000).
4. Create another contract for the same vehicle (A) with a
 recurring cost of 50 and "Monthly" frequency.
5. Check the monthly cost again.

Issue:
------
The reported cost is incorrect. Instead of 1050 (1000 + 50), it shows 2100.

Cause:
------
The query uses multiple LEFT JOINs on the contract table, including:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/9ca36dbe53692309bac84329de3b54a1c510cce0/addons/fleet/report/fleet_report.py#L103

These joins overlap and produce duplicate rows for the same
vehicle and month, which results in inflated cost totals.

Solution:
---------
Replace the multiple LEFT JOINs with a single LATERAL join.
This ensures the contract table is processed once per vehicle per month and
avoids duplication, resulting in correct totals.

**Before:**
<img width="940" height="609" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/e5b3e747-1135-4674-97c9-4e4fd9986dfd" />

**After:**
<img width="1053" height="590" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/f0df3819-07fb-4de5-aab3-5b4c6f10d213" />



opw-6024132





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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#256051

Have an x2many field displayed as a list in a form view. In the arch, the x2many form view **isn't** inlined. In that x2many form view, there's a properties field.

When a record is clicked, `extendRecord` is called to add the new fields (those of the form) into `this.fields` and those fields are fetched. If there're properties in the property definition, fake fields are created to represent them (see `_processProperties`). However, because of extendRecord, the static list and the record don't share the same reference to the `fields` object. As a consequence, the `fields` object of the static list isn't updated with the fake property fields.

If the user closes the record, and opens/closes it again, there's a crash, because the record is re-updated with the fields of the static list, and thus doesn't know about those property fields anymore.

This commit fixes the issue by ensuring that we keep the same `fields` object when extending a record, s.t. the list and all its records always share the same object.

Bug originally reported here: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/268312


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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#269717

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

Steps to reproduce:
-----------------------
1 - Install the `purchase` and `stock` modules.
2 - Create a storable product with tracking enabled.
Set the Cost (standard price) to 50.
3 - Open the product form and go to the Purchase tab.
   * Add a vendor with:
   * Quantity: 2
   * Price: 10
 
4 - Create a Reordering Rule for this product:

   * Route: Buy
   * Trigger: Manual
   * To Order Quantity: 2
 
5 - Click on the Order button to generate a purchase order.
6 - Open the generated Purchase Order and verify the Unit Price
on the purchase order line.
7 - Open the same product and go to the Purchase tab.
In the existing vendor line, add an End Date lower than today so
the vendor pricelist becomes expired.
8 - Reopen the same reordering rule.
Change To Order Quantity to 1.
9 - Click on the Order button again

Issue:
-----
The generated purchase order line gets a Unit Price of 0
instead of keeping the product cost or a valid fallback price.

Root Cause:
--------------
- When clicking on `Order`, it triggers `action_replenish`, which calls the
procurement flow:
`_procure_orderpoint_confirm` → `run` → `run` → `_run_buy`.

- Inside `_run_buy`, the system checks whether a `purchase.order.line`
already exists. In this case, the PO line exists, so it calls
 `_update_purchase_order_line`.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/47ef8b75d0c90001b9989a95f09b962c5b286c53/addons/purchase_stock/models/stock_rule.py#L137

- In `_update_purchase_order_line`, the system tries to fetch a seller using
 `_select_seller`,
- which internally calls `_get_filtered_sellers`.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/47ef8b75d0c90001b9989a95f09b962c5b286c53/addons/product/models/product_product.py#L759

- However, if the seller's `end_date` is less than `today`,
 `_get_filtered_sellers` skips that seller and returns no valid seller.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/47ef8b75d0c90001b9989a95f09b962c5b286c53/addons/product/models/product_product.py#L731-L733

- As a result, `_update_purchase_order_line` does not find any seller and falls
back to setting `price_unit` to `0`, causing the purchase order line price to
be updated incorrectly.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/47ef8b75d0c90001b9989a95f09b962c5b286c53/addons/purchase_stock/models/stock_rule.py#L259

---

opw-6117461

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#269971
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262396

## Issue
When using the browser's dark mode, non-mandatory text fields in sign documents appear with a dark background, which does not match the aesthetic of the rest of the page.

## Steps to reproduce
1. Set your browser's theme to a dark theme (in Chrome, go to Settings > Appearance > Theme, chose a theme from the dark options)
2. Install Sign (`sign`)
3. Open a Sign template and add 3 Text fields:
    - Mandatory
    - Non-mandatory
    - Read-only (for comparison)
4. Click *Sign Now*
5. **The non-mandatory text field has a dark background.**

## Cause
Since a [PDF.js update](https://github.com/mozilla/pdf.js/commit/ae1cbc6a9ecc738d6777830488ad5481b97338bc), the `light dark` color-theme was added to `:root`. This means that the element will react to the settings of the browser and adapt its background and text color. In this case, there's no other `background-color` provided to mandatory fields, resulting in them using the dark color of the browser theme.

## Fix
We make the default background of text fields transparent then we update the selector of `.o_sign_sign_item_required` to prevent their `background-color` from being overwritten by that new transparent background.

|            | Before | After |
|------------|--------|-------|
| **Light mode** |    <img width="211" height="99" alt="6213059-before-light" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/c4c70394-c7c2-4dbf-92b9-c1362d1cf9c8" />    |   <img width="207" height="89" alt="6213059-after-light" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/63142be5-9f7d-4d5d-94e8-ef9428e1b778" />    |
| **Dark mode**  |    <img width="220" height="95" alt="6213059-before-dark" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/19149c3d-511e-407c-821e-f318f373368a" />    |    <img width="210" height="103" alt="6213059-after-dark" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/0b412d4f-061f-41b3-aae9-569b9a8219dc" />   |

opw-6213059

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117589

### Steps to reproduce:

1. Create a product tracked by lot
2. Put 10 units in WH/Stock without lot
3. Inventory > Operations > Adjustments > Physical Inventory
4. Select the line referring to your product and request an inventory count + Show Expected Quantity
5. Open the barcode app > Count Inventory
6. Scan your product
#### > The line is not selected, in particular, next scans will be re-interpreted as product scans rather than new serial creation for your product.

### Cause of the issue:

Scanning your product search a line to select if any: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/bce04ce24b66fb1a2481274eb3aebdc30a62766e/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L1432-L1435 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/bce04ce24b66fb1a2481274eb3aebdc30a62766e/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L1630-L1632
However, the `findLine` will fail since this method calls the `_canOverrideTrackingNumber` to determine if the lot of the barcodData matches the one of the line:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/bce04ce24b66fb1a2481274eb3aebdc30a62766e/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L1859-L1863
But, the override of the `_canOverrideTrackingNumber` method for the `BarcodeQuantModel` does not handle the absence of lotName in the barcodeData correctly as it does not consider that a line without lot can be overridden by an empty lotName:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/bce04ce24b66fb1a2481274eb3aebdc30a62766e/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_quant_model.js#L729-L731
Note however that the super call does:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/bce04ce24b66fb1a2481274eb3aebdc30a62766e/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L795-L798

### Issue 2:

### Steps to reproduce:

- Steps 1 -> 5
- Click on your product line to select it
- Scan a new lot to add one new unit referring to that lot
- Confirm (1)
- Apply Now
#### > User Error: Quant's editing is restricted, you can't do this operation

Since the line is selected, you have a currentLine during the `processBarcode` and hence the existing line will be updated using the `lotName``:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/cf3c2fce8a6b7b2d7547d44a0e4423f887986d52/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L1560-L1584 However, writing on the line will then try to write on the related quant during the validation process which will be forbiden since we are not allowed to change the lot of an existing quant:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/e3b0ca11d99b2ef819cdad68b169112cd73668b6/addons/stock/models/stock_quant.py#L351-L360 Now, the issue is that actually due to the nature of the line and of the barcode data, the line lot is not expected to be updated but rather a new line is expected to be created:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/cf3c2fce8a6b7b2d7547d44a0e4423f887986d52/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L795-L798

Additional issue:

Fixing issue 1 and 2 highlight and other issue of the validation process:

- Steps 1 -> 6
> The line gets selected
- Scan a newlot
> a new subline is added referring to 1 unit of your new quant
- Confirm (1) > Some serials where not counted, set them as missing
#### > Check your quants: the 10 unit lotless quant was not updated but a new quant for 1 units was created for your newlot

### Cause of the issue:

Applying all quantities is expecting to toggle them as counted before applying to update the existing quants:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/c8535a7a0e2eae811048a34a0bae187a1fa45311/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_quant_model.js#L72-L82 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/c8535a7a0e2eae811048a34a0bae187a1fa45311/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_quant_model.js#L287-L296 However, only line tracked by serial numbers are set as counted: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/c8535a7a0e2eae811048a34a0bae187a1fa45311/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_quant_model.js#L60-L63

opw-6212923

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118373

Problem:
When printing an invoice for a Latin American (LATAM) company, the company's document layout is not used in the header of the invoice. For example, if an Argentinian company has set up a Bubble layout as its document layout, the header of the invoice will not have the bubble.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Install l10n_ar
2. Create an invoice using Electronic Sales Journal
3. Set document layout to Bubble in the company settings
4. Print the invoice
5. Notice that the header of the invoice does not have the bubble

Cause:
Most LATAM localizations use custom headers for their reports. In report_templates of l10n_latam_invoice_document, it checks if custom_header is set to decide whether to display the custom header. If custom_header is set, the div with class "header" will be hidden, and the custom header will be displayed after the div with class "header". Since the div with class "header" contains the background image that corresponds to the document layout, the background image will not be displayed when div with class "header" is hidden.

Solution:
Instead of hiding the entire div with class "header" when custom_header is set, only hide the table inside the header. This way, the background image of the document layout will still be displayed even when a custom header is used.

opw-6204062

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#267164

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:
Fixes an issue where the sale order reference computation was fetching the invoice journal based on the logged-in user's current company instead of the company associated with the specific payment provider or transaction context. This caused incorrect reference processing or errors in multi-company environments when a user was logged into one company but processing an order from another.

Current behavior before PR:
The function searches for the account.journal using self.company_id.id. Since self in this context (likely a payment provider or transaction record) might be evaluated under the active user's environment context, it fetched the journal from the user's currently active company (allowed_company_ids), disregarding the actual company related to the sale order or the transaction.

Desired behavior after PR is merged:
The invoice journal search uses the correct company context (e.g., order.company_id.id or the specific company linked to the payment record), ensuring that the sale order reference is processed using the appropriate journal from the correct company, regardless of which company the logged-in user is currently switched into.




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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#269558

In this commit:
------------------
- Maintain separate Fiskaly transaction flows for retail (short tx) and restaurant (long tx)
  orders as discussed with the Fiskaly team.
- `Initialize order transactions` with an empty payload when the `first product` is added.
- Start `receipt transactions` with an empty payload when the `first payment line` is added.
- For retail flows, no intermediate order updates are sent to Fiskaly before finalization.
- For restaurant flows, create additional transaction updates during kitchen synchronization.
  Ensure already synchronized products are not resent, and only newly added or updated
  quantities are included in the payload.
- `Finalize order and receipt transactions` with complete order lines and payment details
  when we validate the order.

task: 6208963

Reference:
<img width="1863" height="1285" alt="de_tss_flow" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/9140788e-7948-4a08-9f11-27197b22ca8b" />

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119912
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117526

Steps to reproduce:
1. Install CRM, Calendar, and Contacts.
2. Create a contact with an email address you can receive emails on.
3. Configure an outgoing email server.
4. Open a CRM lead and create a meeting activity using the calendar.
5. Add the created contact as an attendee of the meeting.
6. Return to the lead and click the Reschedule button on the activity.
7. Select the same meeting and change its start date to a future date.

Issue:
- Attendees receive the meeting date-change email twice.

Root cause:

- When a calendar event linked to an activity is rescheduled, the event write syncs the new start date to the related activity through `_sync_activities`. That activity write was not marked as calendar-originated after commit https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/bc090486bd7810b1b0af1bae398255a2d6615f09, so `mail.activity.write` treated the updated deadline as an activity-originated change and wrote back to the same calendar event.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/8cbb0fe91a35fcdb4a7e4e1a7e8afe40b1691f11/addons/calendar/models/calendar_event.py#L779
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/8cbb0fe91a35fcdb4a7e4e1a7e8afe40b1691f11/addons/calendar/models/mail_activity.py#L24-L33
- This created a nested calendar event write. Both the nested write and the original write then triggered attendee date-change notifications, resulting in duplicate emails.

Solution:
- Pass the existing `calendar_event_meeting_update` context flag when syncing calendar event changes to linked activities. This prevents the activity sync from writing back to the event while preserving activity-to-event rescheduling.

opw-6209956

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#266675

Have an x2many field displayed as a list in a form view. In the arch, the x2many form view **isn't** inlined. In that x2many form view, there's a properties field.

When a record is clicked, `extendRecord` is called to add the new fields (those of the form) into `this.fields` and those fields are fetched. If there're properties in the property definition, fake fields are created to represent them (see `_processProperties`). However, because of extendRecord, the static list and the record don't share the same reference to the `fields` object. As a consequence, the `fields` object of the static list isn't updated with the fake property fields.

If the user closes the record, and opens/closes it again, there's a crash, because the record is re-updated with the fields of the static list, and thus doesn't know about those property fields anymore.

This commit fixes the issue by ensuring that we keep the same `fields` object when extending a record, s.t. the list and all its records always share the same object.

Bug originally reported here: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/268312


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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#269717

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

Steps to reproduce:
-----------------------
1 - Install the `purchase` and `stock` modules.
2 - Create a storable product with tracking enabled.
Set the Cost (standard price) to 50.
3 - Open the product form and go to the Purchase tab.
   * Add a vendor with:
   * Quantity: 2
   * Price: 10
 
4 - Create a Reordering Rule for this product:

   * Route: Buy
   * Trigger: Manual
   * To Order Quantity: 2
 
5 - Click on the Order button to generate a purchase order.
6 - Open the generated Purchase Order and verify the Unit Price
on the purchase order line.
7 - Open the same product and go to the Purchase tab.
In the existing vendor line, add an End Date lower than today so
the vendor pricelist becomes expired.
8 - Reopen the same reordering rule.
Change To Order Quantity to 1.
9 - Click on the Order button again

Issue:
-----
The generated purchase order line gets a Unit Price of 0
instead of keeping the product cost or a valid fallback price.

Root Cause:
--------------
- When clicking on `Order`, it triggers `action_replenish`, which calls the
procurement flow:
`_procure_orderpoint_confirm` → `run` → `run` → `_run_buy`.

- Inside `_run_buy`, the system checks whether a `purchase.order.line`
already exists. In this case, the PO line exists, so it calls
 `_update_purchase_order_line`.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/47ef8b75d0c90001b9989a95f09b962c5b286c53/addons/purchase_stock/models/stock_rule.py#L137

- In `_update_purchase_order_line`, the system tries to fetch a seller using
 `_select_seller`,
- which internally calls `_get_filtered_sellers`.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/47ef8b75d0c90001b9989a95f09b962c5b286c53/addons/product/models/product_product.py#L759

- However, if the seller's `end_date` is less than `today`,
 `_get_filtered_sellers` skips that seller and returns no valid seller.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/47ef8b75d0c90001b9989a95f09b962c5b286c53/addons/product/models/product_product.py#L731-L733

- As a result, `_update_purchase_order_line` does not find any seller and falls
back to setting `price_unit` to `0`, causing the purchase order line price to
be updated incorrectly.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/47ef8b75d0c90001b9989a95f09b962c5b286c53/addons/purchase_stock/models/stock_rule.py#L259

---

opw-6117461

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#269971
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262396

### Steps to reproduce:
- In the settings enable: Multi-Steps Routes
-  Set your warehouse to manufacture in 2 steps (pick then manufacture).
- Create a final product (FP) with a BOM in flexible consumption:
  - 2 x COMP (lot tracked)
- Put a lot for 6 units in of COMP in stock
- Create and confirm an MO for 5 units of FP
- Set the quantity producing on the MO to 1, requiring 2 of the 6 available units of COMP
- Validate the MO and create a backorder for the remaining quantity.
#### > The consumed qty on the main MO is of 0 units rather than 2.

### Cause of the issue:

Since the component is tracked, and since the pbm move was backordered, the move quantity will not be automatically set when setting the `qty_producing`:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/a1bcd917846493d08dd02b63e6110078ff5156a3/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L1405-L1411 And in particular, the move is not picked as it would if the product was untracked or if the pbm move was not backordered:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/a1bcd917846493d08dd02b63e6110078ff5156a3/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L1421-L1427 And, since the move will not be picked at any other point in this flow, the move will be unreserved during the `button_mark_done`: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/7c35e183d6cc33a6e5d20e5e97ffef79e03b49d4/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L2216 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/7c35e183d6cc33a6e5d20e5e97ffef79e03b49d4/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L1895-L1896 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/7c35e183d6cc33a6e5d20e5e97ffef79e03b49d4/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L1901

opw-6128575

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#269235

### Steps to reproduce:

1. Create a product tracked by lot
2. Put 10 units in WH/Stock without lot
3. Inventory > Operations > Adjustments > Physical Inventory
4. Select the line referring to your product and request an inventory count + Show Expected Quantity
5. Open the barcode app > Count Inventory
6. Scan your product
#### > The line is not selected, in particular, next scans will be re-interpreted as product scans rather than new serial creation for your product.

### Cause of the issue:

Scanning your product search a line to select if any: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/bce04ce24b66fb1a2481274eb3aebdc30a62766e/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L1432-L1435 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/bce04ce24b66fb1a2481274eb3aebdc30a62766e/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L1630-L1632
However, the `findLine` will fail since this method calls the `_canOverrideTrackingNumber` to determine if the lot of the barcodData matches the one of the line:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/bce04ce24b66fb1a2481274eb3aebdc30a62766e/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L1859-L1863
But, the override of the `_canOverrideTrackingNumber` method for the `BarcodeQuantModel` does not handle the absence of lotName in the barcodeData correctly as it does not consider that a line without lot can be overridden by an empty lotName:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/bce04ce24b66fb1a2481274eb3aebdc30a62766e/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_quant_model.js#L729-L731
Note however that the super call does:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/bce04ce24b66fb1a2481274eb3aebdc30a62766e/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L795-L798

### Issue 2:

### Steps to reproduce:

- Steps 1 -> 5
- Click on your product line to select it
- Scan a new lot to add one new unit referring to that lot
- Confirm (1)
- Apply Now
#### > User Error: Quant's editing is restricted, you can't do this operation

Since the line is selected, you have a currentLine during the `processBarcode` and hence the existing line will be updated using the `lotName``:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/cf3c2fce8a6b7b2d7547d44a0e4423f887986d52/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L1560-L1584 However, writing on the line will then try to write on the related quant during the validation process which will be forbiden since we are not allowed to change the lot of an existing quant:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/e3b0ca11d99b2ef819cdad68b169112cd73668b6/addons/stock/models/stock_quant.py#L351-L360 Now, the issue is that actually due to the nature of the line and of the barcode data, the line lot is not expected to be updated but rather a new line is expected to be created:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/cf3c2fce8a6b7b2d7547d44a0e4423f887986d52/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L795-L798

Additional issue:

Fixing issue 1 and 2 highlight and other issue of the validation process:

- Steps 1 -> 6
> The line gets selected
- Scan a newlot
> a new subline is added referring to 1 unit of your new quant
- Confirm (1) > Some serials where not counted, set them as missing
#### > Check your quants: the 10 unit lotless quant was not updated but a new quant for 1 units was created for your newlot

### Cause of the issue:

Applying all quantities is expecting to toggle them as counted before applying to update the existing quants:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/c8535a7a0e2eae811048a34a0bae187a1fa45311/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_quant_model.js#L72-L82 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/c8535a7a0e2eae811048a34a0bae187a1fa45311/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_quant_model.js#L287-L296 However, only line tracked by serial numbers are set as counted: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/c8535a7a0e2eae811048a34a0bae187a1fa45311/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_quant_model.js#L60-L63

opw-6212923

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118373

Steps:
- Install an Odoo 17.0 database with the Indian Payroll module and demo data.
- Upgrade the database to 18.0.

Issue:
- The Indian payroll demo data creates leave allocations and approves them through an XML function call.
- During a fresh installation, demo files are loaded in 'init' mode, so the approval function is executed and the allocations move from 'confirm' to 'validate'.
- However, during a 17.0 >>> 18.0 upgrade, demo files are loaded in 'update' mode. Odoo automatically loads demo files with 'noupdate=True' from the load_demo() >> load_data() function:
- This value is passed to the XML importer and becomes the default noupdate state for the file. Since the demo XML file does not explicitly override this value, the function tag uses 'noupdate=True'.
- When the XML parser reaches the approval function, _tag_function() skips its execution because of noupdate = 'True' and mode = 'update' condition.
- As a result, the approval function is not executed during the upgrade and the leave allocations remain in 'confirm' state. Subsequent demo payroll data expects validated allocations and fails during loading.

Fix:
- Explicitly set 'noupdate=0' on the demo XML file. This overrides the default 'noupdate=True' value applied to demo files, making the parser evaluate the section with 'noupdate=False'.
- As a result, '_tag_function()' executes the approval method during upgrades, the demo leave allocations are validated in both fresh/new db installations and 17.0 >>> 18.0 upgrade scenarios.

runbot error-https://runbot.odoo.com/odoo/error/230430 

task-6268381

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119217

*= test_l10n_us_hr_payroll_account

The employer matching cap for pre-retirement plans (401KMATCHING) evaluates to zero for hourly wage employees if wage is set to zero.

### **Steps to Reproduce:**
1) Install l10n_us_hr_payroll.
2) Create an employee with an hourly wage and set the fixed wage to 0. 
3) Configure the retirement plan parameters as follows:
  - 401(k) = 3%
  - Matching Amount = 100%
  - Matching Yearly Cap = 100% 
4) Generate a payslip for this employee and compute the sheet.

### **Observed Behavior:**
The "Benefits Matching to Retirement Plans" line computes as zero for the hourly employee.

### **Expected Behavior:**
The employer matching contribution should dynamically scale based on the actual gross pay period earnings instead of evaluating to zero.

### **Root Cause:**
The calculation of `partial_cap` uses `version.wage` directly at [1]. For hourly employees, the fixed 'wage' field defaults to zero, causing the entire multiplication to cancel out.

[1]- https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/4c540f450d4de8b59b871662123f85ed54cca2a9/l10n_us_hr_payroll/data/hr_salary_rule_data.xml#L167

### **Fix:**
This commit computes the retirement matching eligibility cap from
`gross annualized wages` and applies the employer matching percentage on
the eligible contribution amount. This ensures retirement matching is
calculated consistently regardless of the employee's contract type.

**opw-6181024**

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119370

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:
Fixes an issue where the sale order reference computation was fetching the invoice journal based on the logged-in user's current company instead of the company associated with the specific payment provider or transaction context. This caused incorrect reference processing or errors in multi-company environments when a user was logged into one company but processing an order from another.

Current behavior before PR:
The function searches for the account.journal using self.company_id.id. Since self in this context (likely a payment provider or transaction record) might be evaluated under the active user's environment context, it fetched the journal from the user's currently active company (allowed_company_ids), disregarding the actual company related to the sale order or the transaction.

Desired behavior after PR is merged:
The invoice journal search uses the correct company context (e.g., order.company_id.id or the specific company linked to the payment record), ensuring that the sale order reference is processed using the appropriate journal from the correct company, regardless of which company the logged-in user is currently switched into.




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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#269558

**Steps to reproduce on a new db:**
(bug also reproducable on runbot but the impact 
is less easy to compute because of influence of other
existing companies)

- create a new company as company 2 and use the existing 
default company as company 1.
- create a warehouse for both company
- for both comp, in settings for the 'fiscal localization' set 
Package : Generic Chart of account, if not already set
(to have account journals).
- for both comp, in settings for inventory valuation set 
'periodic' and for periodic valuation set 'daily'

From company 1 : 
- create a storable product with standard price method and 
set a cost of 30
- set an onhand quantity of 1
if you navigate to 'inventory valuation' you'll see that : 
  - initial balance is 0
  - ending stock is 30 
  - the variation lines have a balance of 30
  - all of this is expected

From company 2 :
- change the cost of the product to 10
- set an onhand quantity of 1
if you navigate to 'inventory valuation' you'll see that : 
  - initial balance is 0
  - ending stock is 10 
  - the variation lines have a balance of 10
  - all of this is expected
 
From any company :
- navigate to 'scheduled actions' and select the action 
'Stock Account: Inventory Valuation Closing'
- click on 'Run Manually'
- navigate to 'inventory valuation'

**Current behavior:**
with company 1 selected :
  - the initial balance is now 30 
  - ending stock still 30
  - no variation lines
  - the initial balance was correctly increased by the closing entry

with company 2 selected: 
  - the initial balance is now 40
  - the ending stock is still 10
  - the variation lines credit 30 in stock valuation

In company 2 the closing entry debitted 40 in stock valuation 
instead of 10 which increased the initial balance to 40 instead of 10

If you open the journal items you'll find the closing amls have a 
balance of 40 instead of 10

**Cause of the issue:**
The _cron_post_stock_valuation() method 
calls action_close_stock_valuation() on both companies
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/bfa39854e56da4bf23295d62f63d66973ad0d78e/addons/stock_account/models/res_company.py#L143-L144

This methods calls _action_close_stock_valuation
with a context modified with only self.env.company.ids
in 'allowed_company_ids'
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/bfa39854e56da4bf23295d62f63d66973ad0d78e/addons/stock_account/models/res_company.py#L56

This is needed because inside stock_value() we use 
the total value of the product 
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/bfa39854e56da4bf23295d62f63d66973ad0d78e/addons/stock_account/models/res_company.py#L92
which will be the sum of the values of the product 
for each company inside allowed_company_id
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/bfa39854e56da4bf23295d62f63d66973ad0d78e/addons/stock_account/models/product.py#L274
So in case action_close_stock_valuation() was called from 
the 'generate entry' button from the inventory valuation view
we need only the main company selected to be in the
'allowed_company_ids' so that the inventory value is computed 
based only on this company (as is the accounting value).

The problem is that this does not work when calling the 
method from _cron_post_stock_valuation because then
there is no 'allowed_company_ids' in the context (because it was
called from _process_job() with a new env).
so self.env.company will be the company of the user 
which will be company 1.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/bfa39854e56da4bf23295d62f63d66973ad0d78e/odoo/orm/environments.py#L243

Therefore when _action_close_stock_valuation will be 
called on company 2, in the context, allowed_company_ids 
will be company 1. Then, when computing 'products', with_company() 
will add self (company 2) to the context.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/616e82d7b3a53b1facf481e783baed3e99393d3c/addons/stock_account/models/res_company.py#L151-L152
So stock_value will return the sum of the total_value 
of each product for company 1 and company 2 which is 40 (instead 
of 10 for just company 2)
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/616e82d7b3a53b1facf481e783baed3e99393d3c/addons/stock_account/models/res_company.py#L242

We then create the closing accounting entry to match the 
accounting value with the stock value, which explains why 
the new initial accounting balance of company 2 is 40.

**fix:**
We set the context using self instead of self.env.companies
This makes more sense as both in the cron use case and 
the generate entry use case the stock value we want is the 
one of the company in self. 
- In cron use case, it's obvious as the method is called 
in a for loop on each company
- In the generate entry use case, self will also be the main 
company, because it's called, in actionGenerateEntry, 
on this.companyId 
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/616e82d7b3a53b1facf481e783baed3e99393d3c/addons/stock_account/static/src/stock_valuation/controller.js#L75
which is computed based on the get_report_values
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/616e82d7b3a53b1facf481e783baed3e99393d3c/addons/stock_account/static/src/stock_valuation/controller.js#L21
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/616e82d7b3a53b1facf481e783baed3e99393d3c/addons/stock_account/static/src/stock_valuation/controller.js#L28-L30
Which returns the main company
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/616e82d7b3a53b1facf481e783baed3e99393d3c/addons/stock_account/report/stock_valuation_report.py#L29


Most importantly, this is also aligned with how the accounting 
values are computed.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/616e82d7b3a53b1facf481e783baed3e99393d3c/addons/stock_account/models/res_company.py#L103-L105


opw-6237402

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#266932

Steps:
- Install an Odoo 17.0 database with the Indian Payroll module and demo data.
- Upgrade the database to 18.0.

Issue:
- The Indian payroll demo data creates leave allocations and approves them through an XML function call.
- During a fresh installation, demo files are loaded in 'init' mode, so the approval function is executed and the allocations move from 'confirm' to 'validate'.
- However, during a 17.0 >>> 18.0 upgrade, demo files are loaded in 'update' mode. Odoo automatically loads demo files with 'noupdate=True' from the load_demo() >> load_data() function:
- This value is passed to the XML importer and becomes the default noupdate state for the file. Since the demo XML file does not explicitly override this value, the function tag uses 'noupdate=True'.
- When the XML parser reaches the approval function, _tag_function() skips its execution because of noupdate = 'True' and mode = 'update' condition.
- As a result, the approval function is not executed during the upgrade and the leave allocations remain in 'confirm' state. Subsequent demo payroll data expects validated allocations and fails during loading.

Fix:
- Explicitly set 'noupdate=0' on the demo XML file. This overrides the default 'noupdate=True' value applied to demo files, making the parser evaluate the section with 'noupdate=False'.
- As a result, '_tag_function()' executes the approval method during upgrades, the demo leave allocations are validated in both fresh/new db installations and 17.0 >>> 18.0 upgrade scenarios.

runbot error-https://runbot.odoo.com/odoo/error/230430 

task-6268381

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119217

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

Steps to reproduce:
-----------------------
1 - Install the `purchase` and `stock` modules.
2 - Create a storable product with tracking enabled.
Set the Cost (standard price) to 50.
3 - Open the product form and go to the Purchase tab.
   * Add a vendor with:
   * Quantity: 2
   * Price: 10
 
4 - Create a Reordering Rule for this product:

   * Route: Buy
   * Trigger: Manual
   * To Order Quantity: 2
 
5 - Click on the Order button to generate a purchase order.
6 - Open the generated Purchase Order and verify the Unit Price
on the purchase order line.
7 - Open the same product and go to the Purchase tab.
In the existing vendor line, add an End Date lower than today so
the vendor pricelist becomes expired.
8 - Reopen the same reordering rule.
Change To Order Quantity to 1.
9 - Click on the Order button again

Issue:
-----
The generated purchase order line gets a Unit Price of 0
instead of keeping the product cost or a valid fallback price.

Root Cause:
--------------
- When clicking on `Order`, it triggers `action_replenish`, which calls the
procurement flow:
`_procure_orderpoint_confirm` → `run` → `run` → `_run_buy`.

- Inside `_run_buy`, the system checks whether a `purchase.order.line`
already exists. In this case, the PO line exists, so it calls
 `_update_purchase_order_line`.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/47ef8b75d0c90001b9989a95f09b962c5b286c53/addons/purchase_stock/models/stock_rule.py#L137

- In `_update_purchase_order_line`, the system tries to fetch a seller using
 `_select_seller`,
- which internally calls `_get_filtered_sellers`.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/47ef8b75d0c90001b9989a95f09b962c5b286c53/addons/product/models/product_product.py#L759

- However, if the seller's `end_date` is less than `today`,
 `_get_filtered_sellers` skips that seller and returns no valid seller.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/47ef8b75d0c90001b9989a95f09b962c5b286c53/addons/product/models/product_product.py#L731-L733

- As a result, `_update_purchase_order_line` does not find any seller and falls
back to setting `price_unit` to `0`, causing the purchase order line price to
be updated incorrectly.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/47ef8b75d0c90001b9989a95f09b962c5b286c53/addons/purchase_stock/models/stock_rule.py#L259

---

opw-6117461

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#269909
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262396

When checking if a stock.move.line can use a location as destination with the method `_check_can_be_used()`, we start by checking if the incoming products can be stored without exceeding the maximal weight of the location.

This needs to call the `_get_weight()` method to compute the forecasted weight for the location. This method relies on heavy computations and can become a bottleneck when we need to loop over a high number of locations.

In some cases, we can rule out the location based on less expensive conditions that are verified after the weight one.

We propose to invert the conditions check order to avoid computing the location weight when other conditions are not met.

Steps to reproduce
---------------

- Install stock and purchase modules;
- Enable storage locations and categories in the settings;
- Create a storage category: allow_new_product = same, max_weight=10.0 kg;
- Create N locations using this category, parent_id=WH/stock;
- Create a putaway rule to each location from WH/stock, for the new storage category and using a product A with a weight of 2 kg;
- Create a stock.quant per location to store a product B, weight=2kg;
- Create a purchase order with X lines for 1 unit of product A;
- Validate the purchase order.

The validation should take several seconds to execute
as every locations will be rejected due to the storage
category, but it will call _get_weight() first.

Benchmark
---------------

This improvement is very data specific and will be most useful when a lot of locations are using a storage category of type "empty" or "same".
In addition, it also relies on the order in which we are treating the locations, if the acceptable locations are the first to be received in the method, it won't need to loop over all of them.

The following benchmark was established in a production database in which every 6068 locations are using a category of type "same".

| No stock.move.lines | Before PR | After PR |
|---------------------|-----------|----------|
|                  40 |     168 s |   7.3  s |
|                  72 |     264 s |  12.33 s |

When the only condition that can reject locations is the exceeding weight, this modification will slow down the process. However, the time loss in this case is smaller than the gain in the first case.
The following benchmark was obtained by validating a purchase 1 line order with only fully filled locations.

| No locations | Before PR | After PR |
|--------------|-----------|----------|
|          500 |     2.02s |   2.37 s |
|         2000 |     7.85s |   9.76 s |
|        10000 |   39.16 s |  48.86 s |

opw-5949370

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#266872

### Issue
On Runbot, trial, and client databases, the automatic extraction of the description does not work when a user changes the database language

When an expense is first generated up to 19.0, it requires a name and is temporarily given a localized placeholder like "Dépense sans titre..." in French

When the OCR results arrive, the system is supposed to detect this generic fallback string and overwrite it with the real extracted description

However, because of a language mismatch, the system fails to recognize its own placeholder. It incorrectly assumes the user manually entered that text and, to prevent losing user data, refuses to replace it

Before the fix, the title remains stuck on the placeholder
In very rare cases, the translation applies correctly, but it fails most of the time

### Cause
The OCR successfully finds the correct description, but in `_fill_document_with_results`, the expense name is not replaced

This seems to happen because `self` in `self._get_untitled_expense_name("")` carries a residual context that could override the correct language to use during the automated extraction process

Even though the user record and the detected language are correctly set to the alternative language, `default_receipt_name` appears to be generated in English ("Untitled Expense")

This would cause the subsequent string comparison with the actual translated name stored in the database to fail, blocking the update

### Fix
I made some tests in some generated RunBot and the user is correct and also the associated lang

I supposed self was containing lang details overriding the correct language to use

`self.env['hr.expense'].with_context(lang=user_id.lang)` seems to be working

### Steps to reproduce
The issue cannot be reproduced locally, follow these steps on a Runbot instance:
- Retrieve IAP OCR credentials from a trial database
- Enable Developer Mode in Settings
- Go to Settings -> Technical -> IAP -> IAP Accounts
- Add the credentials for the Document Digitization service
- Go to the Expenses app
- Change the user's language to French
- Import the expense image from the ticket
- Open the newly created Expense and click Refresh

Before the fix, the title should stay `Dépense sans titre...` If it's not the case, try a second import, it works times to times

opw-6103935

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:
  In the combo configurator dialog, a combo item's extra_price and the price_extra of no_variant attributes are stored in the company/product currency but were sent to the
  front-end without conversion. When the order uses a pricelist in a different currency, the popup shows these extras at face value (e.g. an extra of USD 1700 appears as ARS
  1700 instead of being converted). The sale order line itself already converts these extras, so the popup price and the actual line price didn't match.

  Current behavior before PR:
  _get_combo_item_data and _get_selected_ptavs_data return extra_price / price_extra raw, in the company currency. With a foreign-currency pricelist the combo configurator
  popup adds them 1-to-1 to the already-converted base price, displaying an incorrect total that doesn't match the resulting sale order line.

  Desired behavior after PR is merged:
  The controller converts extra_price and price_extra to the configurator's currency (via currency._convert()) before serializing them, so the popup shows the correct amounts
  in the pricelist currency and matches the price computed on the sale order line. A test (test_sale_combo_multicurrency.py) covers combo extra-price conversion with a
  foreign-currency pricelist.

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#269386

Steps:
- Install an Odoo 17.0 database with the Indian Payroll module and demo data.
- Upgrade the database to 18.0.

Issue:
- The Indian payroll demo data creates leave allocations and approves them through an XML function call.
- During a fresh installation, demo files are loaded in 'init' mode, so the approval function is executed and the allocations move from 'confirm' to 'validate'.
- However, during a 17.0 >>> 18.0 upgrade, demo files are loaded in 'update' mode. Odoo automatically loads demo files with 'noupdate=True' from the load_demo() >> load_data() function:
- This value is passed to the XML importer and becomes the default noupdate state for the file. Since the demo XML file does not explicitly override this value, the function tag uses 'noupdate=True'.
- When the XML parser reaches the approval function, _tag_function() skips its execution because of noupdate = 'True' and mode = 'update' condition.
- As a result, the approval function is not executed during the upgrade and the leave allocations remain in 'confirm' state. Subsequent demo payroll data expects validated allocations and fails during loading.

Fix:
- Explicitly set 'noupdate=0' on the demo XML file. This overrides the default 'noupdate=True' value applied to demo files, making the parser evaluate the section with 'noupdate=False'.
- As a result, '_tag_function()' executes the approval method during upgrades, the demo leave allocations are validated in both fresh/new db installations and 17.0 >>> 18.0 upgrade scenarios.

runbot error-https://runbot.odoo.com/odoo/error/230430 

task-6268381

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119217

PR very similar to https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/263236 but here 
on the SO side instead of PO
**Problem:**
account move created by stock valuation layer
does not take analytic account from SO

**Steps to reproduce:**
- make sure you have at least one analytic account
- create a storable product with categ standard automated
- set a positive cost and a positive on hand quantity
- create a SO for 1 quantity 
- on the SO line of the product, in the analytic distribution 
column (might need to be unfiltered) set an analytic account
- confirm SO and validate delivery
- click on the valuation smart button and on the book widget
of the stock valuation layer

**Current behavior:**
the account move lines have no analytic distribution

**Expected behavior:**
The account move lines should inherit the analytic account 
from the sale order line like it's the case for the invoice.

For the analytic distribution of the Invoice, the selection is : 
1) take analytic distribution from SO if one
2) if not, take from distribution model if there is one
3) empty

Currently for the account move lines of the svl the selection is: 
1) take from distribution model if there is one
2) empty

But we should use same selection as for the invoice

**Cause of the issue:**
When setting the analytic distribution we first 
try to use the one from PO/SO by calling 
_related_analytic_distribution()
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/4cc1e6884be673523f768d5ec471a1ffa19c5fb4/addons/account/models/account_move_line.py#L1157
But since the account move lines have no sale_line_ids
no analytic distribution will be returned
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/261b15953ca89657644f52d1cb9ecda6e3b686c5/addons/sale/models/account_move_line.py#L41-L46

opw-6022695

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#268866
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#268031

## Issue
When using the browser's dark mode, non-mandatory text fields in sign documents appear with a dark background, which does not match the aesthetic of the rest of the page.

## Steps to reproduce
1. Set your browser's theme to a dark theme (in Chrome, go to Settings > Appearance > Theme, chose a theme from the dark options)
2. Install Sign (`sign`)
3. Open a Sign template and add 3 Text fields:
    - Mandatory
    - Non-mandatory
    - Read-only (for comparison)
4. Click *Sign Now*
5. **The non-mandatory text field has a dark background.**

## Cause
Since a [PDF.js update](https://github.com/mozilla/pdf.js/commit/ae1cbc6a9ecc738d6777830488ad5481b97338bc), the `light dark` color-theme was added to `:root`. This means that the element will react to the settings of the browser and adapt its background and text color. In this case, there's no other `background-color` provided to mandatory fields, resulting in them using the dark color of the browser theme.

## Fix
We make the default background of text fields transparent then we update the selector of `.o_sign_sign_item_required` to prevent their `background-color` from being overwritten by that new transparent background.

|            | Before | After |
|------------|--------|-------|
| **Light mode** |    <img width="211" height="99" alt="6213059-before-light" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/c4c70394-c7c2-4dbf-92b9-c1362d1cf9c8" />    |   <img width="207" height="89" alt="6213059-after-light" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/63142be5-9f7d-4d5d-94e8-ef9428e1b778" />    |
| **Dark mode**  |    <img width="220" height="95" alt="6213059-before-dark" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/19149c3d-511e-407c-821e-f318f373368a" />    |    <img width="210" height="103" alt="6213059-after-dark" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/0b412d4f-061f-41b3-aae9-569b9a8219dc" />   |

opw-6213059

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117589

## Issues
When creating a new timesheet entry from the systray menu, that entry is added at the end of the list, which is inconvenient when the list gets long, as it requires to scroll through the entirety of it to see the most recent entry.

## Steps to reproduce
1. Install Timesheets (`timesheet_grid`)
2. Open the systray menu
3. Create two timesheet entries
4. The second (= most recent) entry appears below the first (= oldest) entry

## Cause
Since https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/5901619141c81085111f2ee65b54492abf1e324f the entries are sorted based on the create date in ascending orer. This means that the oldest entries appear at the top, and the most recent at the bottom. On top of that, new entries were added at the end of the list instead of the start.

## Test
The existing test `Creating a new timesheet places it at the top of the list` was only adding one entry to the list, thus was not properly testing **where** the new entries were added.

opw-6284059

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120258

Steps:
- Install an Odoo 17.0 database with the Indian Payroll module and demo data.
- Upgrade the database to 18.0.

Issue:
- The Indian payroll demo data creates leave allocations and approves them through an XML function call.
- During a fresh installation, demo files are loaded in 'init' mode, so the approval function is executed and the allocations move from 'confirm' to 'validate'.
- However, during a 17.0 >>> 18.0 upgrade, demo files are loaded in 'update' mode. Odoo automatically loads demo files with 'noupdate=True' from the load_demo() >> load_data() function:
- This value is passed to the XML importer and becomes the default noupdate state for the file. Since the demo XML file does not explicitly override this value, the function tag uses 'noupdate=True'.
- When the XML parser reaches the approval function, _tag_function() skips its execution because of noupdate = 'True' and mode = 'update' condition.
- As a result, the approval function is not executed during the upgrade and the leave allocations remain in 'confirm' state. Subsequent demo payroll data expects validated allocations and fails during loading.

Fix:
- Explicitly set 'noupdate=0' on the demo XML file. This overrides the default 'noupdate=True' value applied to demo files, making the parser evaluate the section with 'noupdate=False'.
- As a result, '_tag_function()' executes the approval method during upgrades, the demo leave allocations are validated in both fresh/new db installations and 17.0 >>> 18.0 upgrade scenarios.

runbot error-https://runbot.odoo.com/odoo/error/230430 

task-6268381

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119217

Steps to reproduce:
--------------------------------------------
1. Install `website_project` module
2. Create a new project
3. Add a customer to the project
4. Go to customer > add email and phone
5. Create a new task in that project:
    * Observe that the customer is the same as the project
6. Go to Website > Contact Us > Edit > Click on submit button
7. Set action to 'Create a Task' and select the created project in 'Project'
8. Click on Save and Open the URL in Incognito Mode
9. Go to the Contact Us page > Fill in the details > Submit
10. Comeback to our window and open tasks of the created project

Observation:
--------------------------------------------
1. A new task is created using the customer details entered in the form.
2. The existing task’s customer and the project’s customer are also incorrectly updated to this new customer.

Issue:
--------------------------------------------
The bug is in the `extract_data` method of the website form controller for projects.
A non-logged-in user submits the Contact Us form with name and an email that doesn't match any existing partner. The old code's `else` branch would set `partner_name` in the task record values without setting a `partner_id` https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/cd080047578b9992811608a5af73a982a414da39/addons/website_project/controllers/main.py#L65-L66

During task creation, the computed field `_compute_partner_id` automatically sets `partner_id` to the project's partner
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/cd080047578b9992811608a5af73a982a414da39/addons/project/models/project_task.py#L1440-L1441

`partner_name` is defined as
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/cd080047578b9992811608a5af73a982a414da39/addons/website_project/models/project_task.py#L12

In Odoo, a related field is essentially a shortcut to a field on a linked record The key attribute here is `readonly=False`. This tells Odoo:
    * On read: Get the value from `self.partner_id.name`
    * On write: Propagate the write back to `self.partner_id.name` (this is the inverse). So writing `task.partner_name = 'TEST'` is equivalent to writing `task.partner_id.name = 'TEST'`. It modifies the partner record itself, not just the task.

So, the partner record itself was renamed. Every record that references a partner now sees the new name

Solution:
--------------------------------------------
The fix passes `False` to `partner_id`, this way:
    * The existing partner is untouched
    * All other tasks and the sales order keep their correct customer

opw-6206080

When checking if a stock.move.line can use a location as destination with the method `_check_can_be_used()`, we start by checking if the incoming products can be stored without exceeding the maximal weight of the location.

This needs to call the `_get_weight()` method to compute the forecasted weight for the location. This method relies on heavy computations and can become a bottleneck when we need to loop over a high number of locations.

In some cases, we can rule out the location based on less expensive conditions that are verified after the weight one.

We propose to invert the conditions check order to avoid computing the location weight when other conditions are not met.

Steps to reproduce
---------------

- Install stock and purchase modules;
- Enable storage locations and categories in the settings;
- Create a storage category: allow_new_product = same, max_weight=10.0 kg;
- Create N locations using this category, parent_id=WH/stock;
- Create a putaway rule to each location from WH/stock, for the new storage category and using a product A with a weight of 2 kg;
- Create a stock.quant per location to store a product B, weight=2kg;
- Create a purchase order with X lines for 1 unit of product A;
- Validate the purchase order.

The validation should take several seconds to execute
as every locations will be rejected due to the storage
category, but it will call _get_weight() first.

Benchmark
---------------

This improvement is very data specific and will be most useful when a lot of locations are using a storage category of type "empty" or "same".
In addition, it also relies on the order in which we are treating the locations, if the acceptable locations are the first to be received in the method, it won't need to loop over all of them.

The following benchmark was established in a production database in which every 6068 locations are using a category of type "same".

| No stock.move.lines | Before PR | After PR |
|---------------------|-----------|----------|
|                  40 |     168 s |   7.3  s |
|                  72 |     264 s |  12.33 s |

When the only condition that can reject locations is the exceeding weight, this modification will slow down the process. However, the time loss in this case is smaller than the gain in the first case.
The following benchmark was obtained by validating a purchase 1 line order with only fully filled locations.

| No locations | Before PR | After PR |
|--------------|-----------|----------|
|          500 |     2.02s |   2.37 s |
|         2000 |     7.85s |   9.76 s |
|        10000 |   39.16 s |  48.86 s |

opw-5949370

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#266872

Issue
-----
When making an international delivery to a partner with different invoice and delivery addresses, we send the delivery address as the `Sold To` address as well.

Problematic case 1
-----
- Create a belgian company
- Setup UPS
- Create a French customer
	- Add a different french delivery address
- Create a product (with some weight)
- Create a SO (with UPS delivery) to the customer & confirm
- Validate the transfer

> Commercial invoice `Sold To` uses the delivery address

Solution for case 1
-----
Use the delivery address' `commercial_partner_id`. This leads to another issue in some edge cases...

Problematic case 2 (caused by case 1 fix)
-----
- Create a belgian company
- Setup UPS
- Create a French customer
	- Add a delivery address in Switzerland
- Create a product (with some weight)
- Create a SO (with UPS delivery) to the customer & confirm
- Validate the transfer

> UPS error `The Sold To party's country code must be the same as the Ship To party's country code with the exception of Canada and satellite countries.`

Solution for case 2
-----
Default back to delivery address for the `Sold To` field when countries don't match, as this is a limitation of the UPS API. Warn the user, either on the SO or the transfer itself (if no SO).

Warning looks like this (on SO):
<img width="1914" height="716" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/f7aa73c4-f24c-42da-8f3e-6a58765ef020" />

-----
Ticket:
opw-6200263

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118031

Problem:
- `s_three_columns` is not rendered correctly in Outlook Desktop when the equal-height option is enabled.
- Button padding, border radius, and background color are not rendered properly in Outlook Desktop.

Solution:
- Set the `height` attribute on `td.card-body` along with `valign` so columns keep the same height in Outlook Desktop.
- Use `v:roundrect` to support rounded corners (`arcsize`) and background colors (`fillcolor`), making buttons render consistently with the editor in Outlook Desktop.

Before:
<img width="1249" height="1297" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/828bc42b-1e21-404c-a5ae-81d4ee688802" />
After:
<img width="1249" height="1309" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/263a1c30-fe86-4e40-b3c2-476abc2bf84a" />

Steps to reproduce:
- Add the `s_three_columns` snippet with one card containing more content than the others.
- Add some buttons.
- Send or preview the email in Outlook Desktop.
- Observe that column heights and button styling are not rendered correctly.

opw-6044725

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#269274

Steps to reproduce:
- install `pos_self_order`
- In POS, purchase something
- Refund from the backend but don't validate it yet.
- Delete order from POS by clicking on the Trash icon, from order list
- Return to the backend and observe that the state has been moved to Cancelled.

Current behavior:
- The order is moved to cancelled instead of being deleted.

Expected behavior:
- The order should be deleted.

Cause:
- `pos_self_order` overrides `remove_from_ui` and cancels the order before calling `super()`. 
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/7c47336246aa5443c1e95cb253fea7ac0f8aab0e/addons/pos_self_order/models/pos_order.py#L72-L79
- However, the original method only cleans up orders in `draft` state.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/4a2d74bf802fbbc65d316b2da07b8a27913a0a7f/addons/point_of_sale/models/pos_order.py#L1162-L1168


Fix:
Allow `remove_from_ui` to also clean up already cancelled orders.


opw-6223411

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

Steps to reproduce:
- Set up a Mexican company (MXN, l10n_mx_edi) able to send CFDI.
- Create a Gift Card / eWallet program (e.g. 680 MXN).
- Create a sale order with two products (e.g. 400 and 300).
- Apply the gift card so the first product is fully covered.
- Deliver, invoice, confirm and send to the SAT.

Issue:
The product entirely covered by the gift card (net amount = 0) is missing from the generated CFDI. The SAT requires every delivered product to appear in the XML for inventory and tax traceability, so omitting the line makes the document no longer reflect the transaction.

The line was dropped because the negative-line dispatching (`_dispatch_negative_lines`) moves a positive line that is fully consumed by a negative one into `nulled_candidate_lines`, and those were never re-added to the CFDI lines.

Simply re-adding them is not enough: a fully-discounted line has a tax base of zero, and the SAT rejects a Traslado/Retención with Base = 0 (CFDI40174 / CFDI40181).

Fix:
Re-add the nulled candidate lines so the concepto is kept with Descuento == Importe, and, when the line net is zero, drop its tax breakdown so it is reported as "No objeto de impuesto" (ObjetoImp '01') without an Impuestos node. This matches the behaviour already present in later versions.

opw-6062845