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#120218
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117526

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#269973
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265169

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#270125
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#266872

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#120483
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119370

resource_calendar was not being when calculting virtual leaves, it leads to a singleton error here:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/11b0195dddad5055fc33fa3e28b2d2ca60f24935/addons/l10n_fr_hr_holidays/models/hr_leave.py#L163

```
   File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.2/odoo/orm/models.py", line 519, in _table_sql
    table_query = self._table_query
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.2/addons/hr_holidays/report/hr_leave_employee_report.py", line 40, in _table_query
    self._compute_leave_duration(report_records)
   File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.2/addons/hr_holidays/report/hr_leave_employee_report.py", line 94, in _compute_leave_duration
    leaves_durations = virtual_leaves._get_durations(additional_domain=[('holiday_id', 'not in', leave_ids)])
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.2/addons/l10n_fr_hr_holidays/models/hr_leave.py", line 160, in _get_durations
    while not leave.resource_calendar_id._works_on_date(date_start):
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.2/addons/resource/models/resource_calendar.py", line 877, in _works_on_date
    self.ensure_one()
   File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.2/odoo/orm/models.py", line 5253, in ensure_one
    raise ValueError("Expected singleton: %s" % self)
 ValueError: Expected singleton: resource.calendar()
```

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

Summary
=======

`_check_if_used_in_website_form`, the ondelete hook on
`ir.model.fields` that guards against deleting a field referenced by
a website form, performs poorly on realistic databases. It can take
multiple minutes to validate a single field deletion, blocking user
actions such as removing a Studio field.

This commit restricts the scan to columns that can actually contain
website form markup, bringing the hook from multi-minute to
sub-second without any loss of coverage.

The Problem
===========

Deleting any `ir.model.fields` record triggers this validation hook,
which must ensure the field is not referenced inside any website
form. The implementation iterates every stored HTML column returned
by `website._get_html_fields()` and runs one case-insensitive
`ILIKE '%data-model_name="<model>"%'` search per column against
`<model>.<html_field>`, then parses each match with `lxml` and
validates it with XPath.

Two root issues cause the multi-minute cost:

- **Unbounded scan surface**: all stored HTML columns are scanned
  (~95 on realistic databases), even though the vast majority of them
  declare `sanitize=True` and `sanitize_form=True` (the defaults).
  When both flags are True, `<form>` tags are stripped on write and
  the column can never physically contain website form markup.
- **Per-column `ILIKE` cost**: `ILIKE` on large TEXT/JSONB columns
  performs a sequential scan. A single large HTML column is enough
  to make the hook run for several minutes on its own.

Improvements
============

- Scan only columns that can actually contain forms:
  - `ir.ui.view.arch_db` , primary target; all website forms are
    stored there.
  - HTML fields whose sanitization either is disabled
    (`sanitize=False`, e.g. `blog.post.content`,
    `website.custom_code_head`) or explicitly allows forms
    (`sanitize_form=False`, e.g.
    `product.template.website_description`, `hr.job.description`,
    `event.event.description`). Any other HTML field strips `<form>`
    on write and will never contain a form.
- Batch searches: group the deleted fields by model once and emit a
  single `OR`-domain search per candidate column, instead of one
  search per (field, column) pair.
- Parse each returned record with `lxml` and validate with XPath
  directly. The `ILIKE` domain already filters out non-matching rows
  DB-side.

Benchmarks
==========

Profiled on a database containing ~95 stored HTML columns and ~5.2k
views. The hook was invoked read-only via
`field._check_if_used_in_website_form()` on a custom field.

| Metric                         |     Before |      After |
| :----------------------------- | ---------: | ---------: |
| Hook wall time                 |     ~444 s |    ~173 ms |
| HTML columns scanned           |         95 |          5 |
| SQL queries issued             |         96 |          6 |

Key results:

- Hook wall time reduced from multi-minute to sub-second
  (~2,570× faster on the profiled database).
- Scan surface reduced from ~95 columns to a handful (1 +
  the form-capable HTML fields installed on the database, typically
  under 10).

opw-6086536

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#268666
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#259846

Version:
- 19.0

Steps to reproduce:
- Install Attendances and Time Off
- Create an internal user.
- Give the user: Attendances Officer access & No Time Off Officer/Manager rights
- Create an employee linked to the user.
- Configure the employee with a Flexible Working Schedule.
- Create and approve a Time Off request for the employee.
- Open: Attendances -> Gantt View
- Navigate to the month containing the employee's approved leave.

Issue:
- An access error is raised when opening a month that contains the employee's
  approved leave.

Cause:
- In `_handle_flexible_leave_interval`, the code accesses `leave.holiday_id`
  to read fields such as `request_unit_half`, `request_unit_hours`, and
  `request_hour_from/to` on the `hr.leave` model.
- When the current user has Attendances Officer rights but no Time Off
  access(rare cases), the ORM access check on `hr.leave` raises an AccessError,
  even though this read is purely for internal calendar computation and
  does not expose leave data to the user interface.
 
Fix:
- Added sudo() on holiday_id to access the employee's leave details
  and compute the work interval as expected.

Task-6264510

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120587
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119116

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

Steps to replicate:
- Install `project` and open projects.
- From the list view select multiple projects and edit their name.

Error:
```
File '/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.3/addons/project/models/project_project.py', line 754, in write
    analytic_account_to_update.write({'name': self.name})
File '/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.3/odoo/orm/fields.py', line 1728, in __get__
    record.ensure_one()
File '/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.3/odoo/orm/models.py', line 5341, in ensure_one
    raise ValueError('Expected singleton: %s' % self)
ValueError: Expected singleton: project.project(8, 9, 10)
```

Cause:
- As multiple records were changed at the moment, `self` had multiple recordsets and trying to access `self.name` [1] causes this error.

Solution:
- Avoided accessing `self.name` on a multi-recordset during multi-edit.
- Updated analytic account names using the name recieved in the vals.

[1]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/a69ec43f490735f639292d116b0207182c5b2581/addons/project/models/project_project.py#L608

sentry-7452096418
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#269830
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#267620

**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#269152
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#266932

**Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:**

The `Product Reference Price` feature in `website_sale` cannot correctly handle products sold in large packs when the reference quantity requires a very small `base_unit_count`.

For example, a product sold as a `box of 10000` screws should be able to use `0.0001` as its `Base Unit Count`, so the reference price can be computed against the box quantity correctly.

**Current behavior before PR:**

`base_unit_count` uses the default float precision, so values with more than two decimal places are rounded in the product form.

When trying to set `Base Unit Count` to `0.0001`, the value is rounded to `0.00` / `0.01`, which makes the Product Reference Price computation incorrect.

Steps to reproduce:

1. Go to Settings > Website and enable Product Reference Price.
2. Create or open a product named `Screws`.
3. Set Sales Price to `$ 1.00`.
4. On the product form, set Base Unit Count to `0.0001`.
5. In Custom Unit of Measure, type `box of 10000` and press Create.


<img width="1374" height="740" alt="1" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/2d4f7863-b2cd-4c7c-87e1-11526dc50551" />

**Desired behavior after PR is merged:**

`base_unit_count` keeps high-precision values such as `0.0001`.

This allows `Product Reference Price` to correctly support large-pack scenarios, such as selling screws in a `box of 10000`, by storing `base_unit_count` with unlimited numeric precision.


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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262579

**Description**
Opening the Budget Report from any budget record times out on databases
with significant data volume. The request to
`budget.report/formatted_read_grouping_sets` consistently times out,
making the Budget Report completely unusable.

**Root cause:**
`budget.report` is an SQL view that consists of 5 UNION ALL branches.
When the list view loads, the ORM translates the `budget_analytic_id`
domain into a WHERE clause on the outer query wrapping the full UNION
ALL subquery. PostgreSQL cannot push this filter through a UNION ALL as
it's a hard optimization barrier. It must fully materialize the subquery
regardless of which budget is being viewed.

**Fix:**
Override _search on budget.report to extract budget_analytic_id and
budget_line_id conditions from the incoming domain using the Domain API.
budget_line_id is rewritten as Domain('id', op, value) so _to_sql()
correctly emits bl.id in the raw SQL. The resulting domain is injected
in context under budget_line_domain and read in _get_bl_query,
_get_aal_query (base module), and _get_pol_query (purchase module) to
filter budget_line rows inside each branch's LEFT JOIN ON clause.
This also removes the budget_report_budget_line_ids context key from
budget_line._compute_all, unifying both filters under one mechanism.

---

On customer DB (568k `account_analytic_line`, 27k `budget_line`,
116k confirmed `purchase_order_line`, 114k posted vendor bill lines
with purchase link):

| Budget | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| 8 lines, 730d span | timeout | 2.27s |
| 14 lines | timeout | 2.39s |
| 14 lines, 1095d span | timeout | 1.63s |

- Before: https://explain.dalibo.com/plan/ehed5eb8de251426
- After: https://explain.dalibo.com/plan/db8aef35cag9hg6f

opw-6098047

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119728
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#114692

### Steps to reproduce:

- In the settings enable: "Units of Measure & Packagings", "Storage Locations"
- Create a product in units and register 1 unit in stock
- Inventory > Operations > Adjustments > Physical Inventory
- Select your line and request a count > Set Current Value
- Inventory > Configurations > units of measures > UOM categories
- Select unit and archive it
- Go to the barcode app > Click Count inventory
### > Owl error: Uncaught promise

### Cause of the issue:

Since the uom used on the quant is archived, it is not found by the search used to fill the barcodeCache:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/26546bcd3beebc7f65ce08385441b6284b46598e/stock_barcode/static/src/components/main.js#L209-L213 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/26546bcd3beebc7f65ce08385441b6284b46598e/stock_barcode/models/stock_quant.py#L104-L106 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/26546bcd3beebc7f65ce08385441b6284b46598e/stock_barcode/static/src/components/main.js#L229 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/26546bcd3beebc7f65ce08385441b6284b46598e/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L37-L39 However, if the uom is not present in the barcode cache the `BarcodeQautnModel` will fail to createLinesState whihc raises a missing error:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/26546bcd3beebc7f65ce08385441b6284b46598e/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_quant_model.js#L712 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/26546bcd3beebc7f65ce08385441b6284b46598e/stock_barcode/static/src/lazy_barcode_cache.js#L107-L110

opw-6250090

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120065
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118813

## Issue
When trying to call `dt.replace` on a `datetime.time`, a TypeError is raised

```
File "/home/odoo/Documents/src/odoo/190/odoo/addons/base/models/ir_sequence.py", line 270, in _next
    return seq_date.with_context(ir_sequence_date_range=seq_date.date_from, ir_sequence_date=dt.replace(tzinfo=None))._next()
                                                                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
TypeError: 'tzinfo' is an invalid keyword argument for replace()
```

## Steps to reproduce
1. Install *Accounting* (`accountant`)
2. Update the `account.payment` sequence:
    - Toggle *Use subsequences per date_range* and create a range
3. In Accounting > Customers > Payments, create a payment:
    - Payment Type: Receive
    - Customer: Any
    - Amount: Any
4. **A traceback appears**

## Cause
This error was introduced by https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/4b9dd7893f96.

The `AccountPayment._compute_name` method calls `_next_by_code` and passes a date as the `sequence_date`.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/337efb069f6cf2cb9478a970f075fd139c1e8e0a/addons/account/models/account_payment.py#L420-L422

In the `_next` method, the `dt` variable is set to that date (`datetime.date`), and calling the `.replace` method on that variable raises an error, as there's no tzinfo for `datetime.date`s.

opw-6303885

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#270283