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#120529
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117526

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

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#270061
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265169

### 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

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#120668
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119116

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

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

**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

Steps to reproduce
1. Set warehouse to 2-step incoming (Input → Stock)
2. Enable "Propagation of carrier" on the push rule (Input → Stock)
3. On the vendor, set "Purchase Orders Grouping" to "Always"
4. Create a storable product with the Buy route and that vendor
5. Create two sale orders for that product, each with a different delivery carrier
6. Confirm both sale orders → a single merged purchase order is created
7. Confirm the purchase order → a receipt (Vendors → Input) is created
8. Validate the receipt → ValueError: Expected singleton: delivery.carrier(1, 3)

Issue
In `_get_new_picking_values`, when the push rule fires to create the internal transfer (Input → Stock), the carrier is fetched from the referenced sale orders: carrier_id = self.reference_ids.sale_ids.carrier_id.id https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5fb0c1f1460949043aa23ddbed09bdbfdc4a8482/addons/stock_delivery/models/stock_move.py#L45

Because both sale orders share the same merged receipt, the receipt move references both. When those SOs have different carriers, `self.reference_ids.sale_ids.carrier_id` returns a multi-record recordset and calling `.id` raises `ValueError: Expected singleton: delivery.carrier(1, 3)`.

opw-6126760

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262671

When a Time Off Type is created, it inherits the country of the current company. If there are leaves or allocations created from this Time Off Type and the company's country is then changed, various parts of Time Off will throw access errors as the leaves and allocations are still tied to the former country. The goal of this PR is to constrain
the company country from being changed unless there are no such leaves or allocations.

**Steps to Reproduce on Runbot:**
1. Ensure the current company has a `country` set, e.g. "My Company (San Fransisco)" has country set to "United States". 
2. Access Time Off as Mitchell Admin.
3. Create a new Time Off Type, for simplicity's sake without a need for allocation or approval, ex: "Gone Fishing". Note this Time Off Type will have the `country` set to the company country by default. 
4. Take "Gone Fishing" time off. 
5. Change or set blank the company's `country` value. 
6. Ensure the record rules cache is flushed.
7. Try to access Time Off. 

opw-6206359, opw-6140496

closes #263950

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263950

**Steps to reproduce:**

- Enable "Track orders edits" in the settings
- Enable "Log in with Employees"
- Go to the Restaurant, log in with employee A
- Go to a table, order 3 Sushis
- Go back to the floor plan and change to employee B
- Go back to the table and change the qty of 3 Sushis to 2 Sushis
- Go to the order in the backend and check the chatter
- It will indicate that employee A did the change, but it was employee B

**Why the fix:**

We always used the cashier set on the order to determine who should be put in the chatter, regardless of who is actually connected at that point.

We now use the session's current employee to write who did the change in the chatter.

We do not change the order's employee, because it will be done once the order has been paid.

In the case where we are not logged in but pos_hr is installed, the employee_id might be the id of a res.user, and
browsing it might return the wrong value. To avoid this, we check if the value exists as a hr.employee before assigning the name.

The way we return the value has been changed because the linter wasn't happy about it.

opw-6213504

**Problem:**
On the /shop page, the "Fill" option in the web editor (cover/contain toggle on product card images) appears clickable but has no visible effect on the product thumbnails.

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Install website_sale and open /shop.
2. Open the web editor and select the shop page.
3. Locate the "Fill" button group in the right panel (with the two svg icons).
4. Click the alternate option to switch between cover and contain.
5. Observe that the product card thumbnails do not change appearance.

**Current behavior:**
The toggle flips the `o_wsale_context_thumb_cover` class on the products table (and the activation of the `products_thumb_cover` view), but the product images keep rendering with `object-fit: contain` regardless of the toggle state.

**Expected behavior:**
The image fill mode follows the toggle:
- "cover" option active   → product image uses `object-fit: cover`
- "cover" option inactive → product image uses `object-fit: contain`

**Cause of the issue:**
The product image template renders the img with the `object-fit-contain` utility class, and the local SCSS rule declares
`.object-fit-contain { object-fit: contain !important; }`. The CSS variable `--o-wsale-card-thumb-fill-mode` (set to `cover` by `.o_wsale_context_thumb_cover`) does cascade down to the img, but the non-variable, `!important` rule on the utility class always wins, so the variable-driven rule
`object-fit: var(--o-wsale-card-thumb-fill-mode, contain)` is silently overridden and the toggle becomes inert.

**Fix:**
Making the `.object-fit-contain` rule read the same CSS variable lets the existing toggle mechanism take effect without changing any template or removing the utility class. Outside the `.o_wsale_context_thumb_cover` context the variable is undefined, so the `var(..., contain)` fallback preserves the prior `contain` behavior for any other consumer of the class. This keeps the change to a single SCSS line, with no XML touched and no other CSS class semantics altered.

opw-6231432

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#268302
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#266717

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

In v19.3, PR #241780 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.

[pr] : https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/241780/changes

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

**Solution**

added `group_hr_manager` group to the field `employee_type_id` so both groups can view employee_type.

**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
tgb- 2751

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120233

Currently, an error occurs when downloading the asset template.

**Steps to Reproduce:**
 - Install the `account_asset` module without demo data.
 - Go to `Accounting` > `Configuration` > `Accounting` > `Chart of Accounts`.
 - Open the `Fixed Assets` account, set a `Depreciation` value, and remove the `account code`.
 - Go to `Accounting` > `Accounting` > `Assets & Liabilities` > `Assets`.
 - Click `With our template` on the screen.

`TypeError: startswith first arg must be str or a tuple of str, not bool`

After this [recent commit], account codes became optional and can be removed. As a result, when 
the code is removed from the Fixed Assets account and when donloading the asset template, the 
system checks whether the account name starts with the account code [1]. Since the account 
code is `False`, it raises an error.

This commit ensures that the check is only performed when the account code exists; otherwise, 
the account name is used directly for the asset account.

[recent commit]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/c3313b336b9f1305c363097745926f2bdf61e277

[1]- https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/421fce171dc158faa3b13406b6cea5c1c907ee49/account_asset/controller/asset_template_controller.py#L46-L49

sentry-7487406857

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117580

This PR is the first part of a larger effort to unify the API and appearance of cards across view types (kanban records, gantt popovers, calendar popovers, map popovers, activity records, hierarchy records). All of these views share the same need: displaying a compact representation of a record.

Until now, each of these cases had its own implementation, resulting in inconsistent arch APIs (poor developer experience) and an inconsistent look across the UI (poor user experience).

As a first step toward this goal, this PR introduces the card view type and allows it to be referenced from other views via the card_id attribute. When this attribute is set on the root node of an arch, the corresponding card view is automatically inlined into the arch.

The kanban view has been refactored: its core card rendering logic has been extracted into a dedicated view/component.

The gantt popover API has been updated to use the new card API. The kanban_view_id attribute has been removed in favor of card_id, so it is no longer possible to reference a kanban view inside a popover. The popover template API has also been reworked to align with the card API (which is basically the well-known old kanban templates API). Concretely, one can now either reference a card view via the card_id attribute, or directly inline the popover-header, popover-body, and popover-footer templates, which follow the same API as cards.

Part of task~5262907

Currently, when a user without accounting permissions attempts to cancel a Manufacturing Order (MO), an Access Error is raised.

## Steps to produce:
- Install Manufacturing and Accounting with demo data.
- Users > Marc Demo > Remove Accounting Permissions and give Admin permissions for Manufacturing
- Login as Marc Demo
- Create an MO for` [D_0045_G] Stool (Green) `and try to cancel it.

## Observed Behavior:
Failed to read field mrp.workorder.employee_analytic_account_line_ids

## Root cause:
After PR [1], version 19.0 introduced access checks when reading many2many fields. As a result, if a user lacks read access to a model field, an access error is raised.

During cancellation, `action_cancel` [2] is called, and the error occurs when unlinking, since the user does not have read access to the account.analytic.line records the system throws an access error.

**Why does this error not occur in 19.3+?**
Commit [3] added `sudo` to allow cancellation of workorder
[2]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/d7ab7ee1287342638006e290ede20b955aae8370/mrp_workorder_hr_account/models/mrp_workorder.py#L24-L26
 
## Solution:
Manufacturing Administrators often need to cancel MOs and WOs, but granting them accounting rights solely for this purpose is not always necessary. A practical solution is to allow MO cancellation through sudo privileges, which can be achieved by backporting [3].

[1]:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/217277

[3]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/31cf5f014c48b97158042e64ad0b8e9827a6c0d5

Related Community PR: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/264925

opw-6204049

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install the `account_reports` module and enable developer mode.
- Navigate to Invoicing > Customers > Customers.
- Open the `Acme Corporation` record.
- Click the `Due` smart button.

**Error:**
`OwlError: Invalid props for component 'PartnerLedgerFollowupLineCell': 'cellIndex' is missing (should be a number)`

**Root Cause:**
In commit [1], `cellIndex` was added as a required props to 
`AccountReportLineCell`. However, `PartnerLedgerFollowupLineCell` 
at [2] was not updated to pass this props, causing an error.

**Fix:**
This commit prevents the error and ensures that users can open 
the `Follow-up` Report.

[1]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/ae3e71164bea8883417793bad0bfa5ef72db758f

[2]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/3c4e2259ec8fb67d799806d94ffe40ab6a40f25e/account_reports/static/src/components/partner_ledger_followup/line/line.xml#L7

opw-6296374
opw-6299717
opw-6300704
opw-6301870
opw-6245448
opw-6302816
opw-6298215
opw-6303774
opw-6301046
opw-6304518
opw-6305071
opw-6306193
opw-6306219
opw-6308514
opw-6308957
opw-6312342
opw-6312746
opw-6313506
opw-6314075
opw-6315101

## [FIX] sale_renting_planning: check global leaves working schedule

Before this commit: any `resource.calendar.leaves` with no `resource_id` created would prevent all resources from being allocated during the leave date.

After this commit: any `resource.calendar.leaves` with `no resource_id` would be applied only to resources with the same `calendar_id` as the leave.

if the leave has no `calendar_id` then the leave applies to all `resource.calendars`

if a resource has no `calendar_id` then leaves with no `calendar_id` apply to it as well

## [IMP] {website_}sale_renting_planning: move tests from industry and fix existing ones

This commit moves the tests from [odoo/industry#1980](vscode-file://vscode-app/snap/code/237/usr/share/code/resources/app/out/vs/code/electron-browser/workbench/workbench.html) to their respective standard modules.

It also fixes the logic behind some tests as they weren't testing a `planning.role` with `sync_shift_rental` enabled.

task-6179505

Module: l10n_it_pos

Steps to reproduce:
- In the POS settings, enable "Automatic Receipt Printing";
- Enable "ePos Printer" to make the "Skip Preview Screen" option appear;
- Disable "Skip Preview Screen";
- Disable "ePos Printer";
- Set up an Italian Fiscal Printer;
- Open a POS session and process a first order. Issue: After the first receipt, no other messages (price display, receipt, open register) are sent to the fiscal printer. A page reload is required.

Issue: After the first receipt, no other messages (price display, receipt, open register) are sent to the fiscal printer. A page reload is required.

Cause:
When "Automatic Receipt Printing" is true but "Skip Preview Screen" is false, a race condition occurs. `afterOrderValidation` triggers a print job while simultaneously transitioning to the `ReceiptScreen`. When the `ReceiptScreen` mounts, it triggers a second fiscal print job before the first has resolved. This creates a deadlock in `toHtml` of  `renderService`, permanently blocking the printer queue.

Solution:
Since the italian localisation sending the receipt to the fiscal printer is mandatory, the printing route is now tied to the "Skip Preview Screen" option.

Enterprise PR: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/112654

[opw-5979212](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project/49/tasks/5979212)

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

Module: l10n_it_pos

Steps to reproduce:
- In the POS settings, enable "Automatic Receipt Printing";
- Enable "ePos Printer" to make the "Skip Preview Screen" option appear;
- Disable "Skip Preview Screen";
- Disable "ePos Printer";
- Set up an Italian Fiscal Printer;
- Open a POS session and process a first order.

Issue: After the first receipt, no other messages (price display, receipt, open register) are sent to the fiscal printer. A page reload is required.

Cause:
When "Automatic Receipt Printing" is true but "Skip Preview Screen" is false, a race condition occurs. `afterOrderValidation` triggers a print job while simultaneously transitioning to the `ReceiptScreen`. When the `ReceiptScreen` mounts, it triggers a second fiscal print job before the first has resolved. This creates a deadlock in `toHtml` of  `renderService`, permanently blocking the printer queue.

Solution:
Since the italian localisation sending the receipt to the fiscal printer is mandatory, the printing route is now tied to the "Skip Preview Screen" option.
UI settings are adjusted to hide the redundant auto-print checkbox when an IT fiscal printer is configured.

Community PR: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/256932

[opw-5979212](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project/49/tasks/5979212)

Steps to reproduce
------------------
1. Set a default tax on the "Cash Difference Gain" account (e.g. a 25%
   sales tax) -- required in some countries like Denmark (cf 5972690).
2. Open a PoS session, count more cash than expected at closing.
3. Try to close the session.

-> Error message shows up "The journal entry reached an invalid
state..." ... "The journal entry must always have exactly one journal
item involving the bank/cash account"

What's happening
----------------
PoS creates a bank statement line with the gain account as counterpart,
resulting in 2 lines: cash +10, gain -10. Since the gain account has a
default tax, `_sync_tax_lines` adds a tax line of -2.5 on top, which
makes the move unbalanced by 2.5. Then `_sync_unbalanced_lines` adds a
4th line to fix it, on the line returned by
`_get_automatic_balancing_account`, which is `journal.default_account_id`,
i.e. the cash account itself for a cash journal.

So we end up with 2 lines on that same cash account, which a bank
statement line move doesn't allow -> Error.

The fix
-------
In `_post_statement_difference`, precompute the base and tax split
ourselves and build the statement line's `line_ids` directly (e.g. for
+10 and a 25% tax: cash +10, gain -8, tax -2). The move is balanced
from creation, so `_sync_tax_lines` and `_sync_unbalanced_lines` don't
have to touch it.

Note that we force the tax computation to be in 'force_price_include'
mode, as the counted cash difference is a gross amount (physical money
in the drawer). This way the tax is always extracted from the cash
amount, regardless of how the tax is configured (included or excluded
in price). Same pattern is already used by `hr_expense` (cf
`hr_expense.models.account_move_line._compute_totals`).

opw-5972690