*: l10n_{ar,co,in,pe,uy}_pos

**Problem:**
The POS "Edit/Create customer" Form was switched to a standalone, hardcoded form view (view_partner_form_pos_ui) that inherits nothing during [1], in the attempt to simplify the view when accessed from the PoS.

Every field that localizations and other modules add to the partner form by inheriting base.view_partner_form therefore disappeared when accessed from PoS. Some of the fields are required, for example, to invoice.

**Solution:**
Keep the simplified view as the default, but route the view selection through an overridable hook that localization can tweak case by case. The override is applied to the affected POS bridges (see module list).

Add a test to prevent future regression.


**Note:**
Another possibility is to re-inherit for each localization the new
standalone view, but this fix would need to update the module to work,
while this one works with just a restart.
There are still ongoing discussion with PoS team to see if we really
want to go back to each localization needing to inherit backend views.

[1]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/230721/changes#diff-66cd201e7e8cfff5218a9fa93efd72f0bd77659b87359f2ca8763702462aaf92R26

opw-6244777 (many more)

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#268158

*: br,cl,ec,gt,it,ke,mx

**Problem:**
The POS "Edit/Create customer" Form was switched to a standalone, hardcoded form view (view_partner_form_pos_ui) that inherits nothing during [1], in the attempt to simplify the view when accessed from the PoS.

Every field that localizations and other modules add to the partner form by inheriting base.view_partner_form therefore disappeared when accessed from PoS. Some of the fields are required, for example, to invoice.

**Solution:**
Keep the simplified view as the default, but route the view selection through an overridable hook that localization can tweak case by case. The override is applied to the affected POS bridges (see module list).

Add a test to prevent future regression.

**Note:**
Another possibility is to re-inherit for each localization the new standalone view, but this fix would need to update the module to work, while this one works with just a restart.
There are still ongoing discussion with PoS team to see if we really want to go back to each localization needing to inherit backend views.

[1]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/230721/changes#diff-66cd201e7e8cfff5218a9fa93efd72f0>

opw-6244777 (many more)

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119316

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:
Since [1], studio binary fields uploaded through a form store their filename.
Due to the condition of [1], this behaviour is restricted to manual fields, which limits the usage of those fields in standard and is particularly problematic when Saas modules that use this feature are migrated to Python. Not storing the filename can lead to incorrect mimetype guesses.
Given that a more appropriate condition has already been added in [2], it should no longer be necessary to restrict this feature to manual fields.
This commit removes that restriction to allow standard binary fields to store their filename when uploaded through a form.

Current behavior before PR:
When uploading a file to a non-manual binary field that has a related '_filename' field, the filename will not be stored, which can later lead to incorrectly guessing the mimetype of the file.

Desired behavior after PR is merged:
Uploading a file to a non-manual binary field that has a related '_filename' field stores the filename of the file.

Task related to this issue: https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project.task/5917543

[1] https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/0e2f3b144581c47d25a99cecdd7e058a3d55bcc3
[2] https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/1bcab2f42eebf98127416e54f31cd6e351938b7f



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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#268014

**Issue**
Having supplier pricelists with at least one vendor inaccessible to the current user can trigger an access error when creating an RFQ approval request.

**Steps to reproduce**
- Have two companies A and B and two users u1 and u2
- user u2 only have access to company A
- With user u1:
	- Create two vendors v1 and v2 without any company assigned
	- Create vendor pricelists for a product for each vendor and assign the company A to the pricelist
- Add the company B for the vendor v2
- With user u2:
	- Open approval application
	- Try to create an approval for an RFQ for that product (the vendor v1 will be automatically selected)
	- Save it -> An access error is thrown

**Cause**
Saving the approval request computes `has_no_seller`, which calls `_select_seller`: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/03c737685ff6dfc95a8bc72491646774fc426b1f/approvals_purchase/views/approval_product_line_views.xml#L9 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/03c737685ff6dfc95a8bc72491646774fc426b1f/approvals_purchase/models/approval_product_line.py#L32 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/03c737685ff6dfc95a8bc72491646774fc426b1f/approvals_purchase/models/approval_product_line.py#L62-L70 Which filtered the right seller
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/c37e76850d3ff790b76493bd1003d80e170bd4bf/addons/product/models/product_product.py#L759 By preparing the sellers:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/c37e76850d3ff790b76493bd1003d80e170bd4bf/addons/product/models/product_product.py#L721 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/c37e76850d3ff790b76493bd1003d80e170bd4bf/addons/product/models/product_product.py#L712 Please note that `self.seller_ids` contains both sellers (even v2) By filtering the suppliers:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/c37e76850d3ff790b76493bd1003d80e170bd4bf/addons/product/models/product_supplierinfo.py#L104-L105 But at that point, one of the supplier in `self`, can be accessed, thus an access error is thrown while trying to access its associated `partner_id`.

opw-6203910

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#269552

**Issue**
Having supplier pricelists with at least one vendor inaccessible to the current user can trigger an access error when creating an RFQ approval request.

**Steps to reproduce**
- Have two companies A and B and two users u1 and u2
- user u2 only have access to company A
- With user u1:
	- Create two vendors v1 and v2 without any company assigned
	- Create vendor pricelists for a product for each vendor and assign the company A to the pricelist
- Add the company B for the vendor v2
- With user u2:
	- Open approval application
	- Try to create an approval for an RFQ for that product (the vendor v1 will be automatically selected)
	- Save it -> An access error is thrown

**Cause**
Saving the approval request computes `has_no_seller`, which calls `_select_seller`: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/03c737685ff6dfc95a8bc72491646774fc426b1f/approvals_purchase/views/approval_product_line_views.xml#L9 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/03c737685ff6dfc95a8bc72491646774fc426b1f/approvals_purchase/models/approval_product_line.py#L32 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/03c737685ff6dfc95a8bc72491646774fc426b1f/approvals_purchase/models/approval_product_line.py#L62-L70 
Which filtered the right seller
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/c37e76850d3ff790b76493bd1003d80e170bd4bf/addons/product/models/product_product.py#L759 
By preparing the sellers:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/c37e76850d3ff790b76493bd1003d80e170bd4bf/addons/product/models/product_product.py#L721 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/c37e76850d3ff790b76493bd1003d80e170bd4bf/addons/product/models/product_product.py#L712 
Please note that `self.seller_ids` contains both sellers (even v2) By filtering the suppliers:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/c37e76850d3ff790b76493bd1003d80e170bd4bf/addons/product/models/product_supplierinfo.py#L104-L105 
But at that point, one of the supplier in `self`, can be accessed, thus an access error is thrown while trying to access its associated `partner_id`.

opw-6203910

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120251

There's a few problems with kits and cogs
This PR fixes them and unskips most tests 
of the test class.

**Problems:**
- Problem 1 multiple steps delivery 
  - steps to reproduce: 
    - activate 3 steps delivery 
    - create 2 storable products 'comp A' and 'comp B' 
with category standard perpetual
    - for both : set a cost of 10 and on on hand quantity
    - create a storable kit product with category standard perpetual 
    - create a kit bom for the kit product with 1 comp A and 1 comp B
    - confirm a SO for 1 quantity of the kit prod
    - validate only first delivery
    - confirm invoice 
  - Current behaviour: 
 No cogs line 
  - expected behaviour : 
There should be cogs for 20$
- Problem 2 multiple kits in Bom : 
  - steps to reproduce: 
    - (multiple steps delivery not needed)
    - use same products as for problem 1 but, in the Bom, set
    the number of kit products produced to 2
    - confirm a SO for 2 quantity of the kit prod
    - validate all pickings
    - confirm invoice 
  - Current behaviour: 
 Cogs have a value of 10$
  - expected behaviour : 
There should be cogs for 20$
- Problem 3: fifo comp
  - steps to reproduce: 
    - with 1 step delivery
    - create a storable product 'comp A' with fifo perpetual
    category
    - Confirm a PO and validate receipt for 1 comp A at 10
    - Confirm a PO and validate receipt for 1 comp A at 20
    - create a storable product 'kit' with fifo perpetual categ
    - create a kit bom for the kit product with 1 comp A
    - confirm SO for 2 kit
    - deliver 1 quantity and create backorder
    - confirm invoice for 1 
    - COGS line are created for 10$ (as expected)
    - deliver the backorder
    - confirm invoice for 1
  - Current Behaviour: 
  Cogs are created for 15$
  - Expected Behaviour: 
  Cogs should be created for 20$

**Cause of the issues:**
To compute the price_unit used for the cogs we call 
_get_cogs_value()
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f8741728294a5147c7d2427d9997738096386262/addons/stock_account/models/account_move.py#L122
What we want is the price unit for 1 unit of the kit product
So we want : 
sum(unit price of each comp * quantity of comp in bom)/ quantity of kit in bom
What is done for now : 
Inside the sale_mrp override, for each component of 
the bom we call _get_price_unit() on its move and 
add the value to 'average_price_unit' and then divide
by the quantity of the kit product in the bom
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f8741728294a5147c7d2427d9997738096386262/addons/sale_mrp/models/account_move.py#L38-L42
Inside the sale_mrp override of _get_price_unit() 
we return _get_kit_price_unit() called on the move,
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f8741728294a5147c7d2427d9997738096386262/addons/sale_mrp/models/stock_move.py#L15
Inside _get_kit_price_unit(), the variable 'component_qty_per_kit', 
contains the quantity of each component as recorded in the bom 
times the valued quantity (sale order line quantity).
For each comp :  
    - we store the return value of _get_price_unit 
called on its moves in 'price_unit'.
    - we add to 'total_price_unit': 
    price_unit * component_qty_per_kit/ the kit qty in the bom
we then return total_price_unit / valued quantity
So we actually return:
sum(unit price of each comp * quantity of comp in bom* 
valued quantity)/ (quantity of kit in bom * valued quantity)
which is equal to:
sum(unit price of each comp *quantity of comp in bom)
/ quantity of kit in bom
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/38c737c2a4cc29b48235a100cfa9d6152af73826/addons/mrp_account/models/stock_move.py#L40-L44
Problem 1 is caused by the fact that _get_price_unit()
will return 0 if there's only internal moves because
they have a value of 0.
(The problem does not happen with a single component
cause then the fallback on the super method is correct, but 
with multiple comp the super method also returns 0
because _get_cogs_price_unit returns 0 when more than 
one product).
Problem 2 is caused by the fact that we divide by the 
quantity of the kit in the bom (kit_bom.product_qty) here 
(inside _get_kit_price_unit) and again inside _get_cogs_value
as mentionned before.

Problem 3 happens because there is no mechanism 
to account for already posted cogs inside the sale_mrp 
override of _get_cogs_value(), as qty_invoiced
is computed but never used
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/38c737c2a4cc29b48235a100cfa9d6152af73826/addons/sale_mrp/models/account_move.py#L31

**Fix** 
As regards to the super methods (so non kit scenario),
_get_cogs_value() is used to : 
  -  use original invoice if needed
  - use standard price of the product if no moves
  - deduct already posted cogs 
  - calls get _get_cogs_price_unit() to compute price_unit 
based on the moves

All of this is also wanted for kits and don't need adaptation, 
therefore the override should be on the _get_cogs_price_unit
where we do need a different behaviour when the product is a kit
Doing this we benefit from the 'already posted mechanism' 
from _get_cogs_value which solves problem 3

Additionally, instead of calling get_price_unit we can directly 
call the super method _get_cogs_price_unit as we have 
already computed all the components quantities needed 
for our computation and therefore don't need 
_get_kit_price_unit to recompute all of this.
Also, _get_cogs_price_unit will fall back on the product
standard price if the move has no value which solves 
problem 1.
That will also prevent dividing twice by the quantity 
of kit product in the bom (bom.product_qty) 
which solves problem2.

**Tests:**
Out of the 9 existing tests of the class (that were skipped
before this PR) and after adapation to v19 valuation : 
- 2 succeeded before and after the fix : this PR unskips them
- 5 failed before the fix and now suceed with the fix : this PR 
unskips them 
- 2 failed before the fix and after the fix, they were let 
skipped
In addition, 2 tests were added to cover problem 1 and 3
(problem 2 is covered in test test_sale_mrp_kit_bom_cogs)

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#270075

The website appointment calendar fills availabilities one month at a time and the update_available_slots route maps the calendar month index to an absolute month from datetime.now(). This only matches the displayed months when the first one is the current month. When the first bookable slot is later, a punctual appointment starting in a future month or any appointment whose "at least X hours before start time" lead time pushes the first slot past the current month, navigating forward requests the wrong month and the reached month renders empty.

In update_available_slots, take the lead time into account when computing the reference month so it lands on the first displayed month: the start datetime for a punctual appointment starting in the future, otherwise now plus the minimum schedule hours. The navigated month index is then added to that reference. This extends https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/f0e5b14a823cf97218f4094d287a328e2744fd73 which only handled the future start datetime.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Open the Appointments app
2. Open an appointment type, set Schedule to Weekly and Allow Bookings to On specific dates with a range ending a few months out
3. Set the "at least N hours before start time" field to 360
4. Save and click the Preview button in the header
5. Pick a resource or staff member to reach the calendar
6. Click the right arrow to navigate to the next month

=> the next month shows "Sorry, we have no more slots available for this month"

opw-6206293

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120715

In 19.0 the /checklist command does not appear in the activity note editor.

The note fields of activities, the schedule activity wizard and activity plan templates were moved to widget="html_mail" by https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/2f61560ab45576191394510016c38a7442b95ec8, https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/35d673dccdc0f0c2a06cb0732e3148370f035af9 and https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/4d3a6156d07dc47bb2399d1907e2a47869827933 to render attachment overviews statically instead of with embedded components. html_mail is made for email bodies, it inlines the content on save and it disables the checklist since https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/f94f695ca9fc9a894a837640df2e4160e561f1ab because checklists do not survive the inlining of outgoing emails. The activity note is not an email body, so it gets both side effects for nothing.

Keep the default html widget on these note fields and pass the embedded_components option as false, which is the only part of html_mail the attachment commits needed. The checklist works again, the note is not inlined on save anymore, and the attachment overview still renders statically. The widgets used for real email bodies keep the checklist disabled.

Steps to reproduce:

0. Install the CRM module.
1. Open a lead from the CRM pipeline.
2. Click Activity to open the Schedule Activity dialog.
3. Click inside the Log a note field and type /checklist.

=> Checklist doesn't appear.

Ticket [link](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project.task/6139971)
opw-6139971

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#261071

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:
Since [1], studio binary fields uploaded through a form store their filename.
Due to the condition of [1], this behaviour is restricted to manual fields, which limits the usage of those fields in standard and is particularly problematic when Saas modules that use this feature are migrated to Python. Not storing the filename can lead to incorrect mimetype guesses.
Given that a more appropriate condition has already been added in [2], it should no longer be necessary to restrict this feature to manual fields.
This commit removes that restriction to allow standard binary fields to store their filename when uploaded through a form.

Current behavior before PR:
When uploading a file to a non-manual binary field that has a related '_filename' field, the filename will not be stored, which can later lead to incorrectly guessing the mimetype of the file.

Desired behavior after PR is merged:
Uploading a file to a non-manual binary field that has a related '_filename' field stores the filename of the file.

Task related to this issue: https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project.task/5917543

[1] https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/0e2f3b144581c47d25a99cecdd7e058a3d55bcc3
[2] https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/1bcab2f42eebf98127416e54f31cd6e351938b7f



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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#268014

\* = crm_livechat, livechat, website

Purpose:
--------
Instead of deleting AI chat channels when closing the chat window, they
are deleted 30 days after that the last message was sent (they are still
deleted on close if no message was sent), allowing users to resume their
AI conversations as well as allowing to gather feedback and evaluate the
agents that are used in livechats.

To ease the access to these AI conversations, a new discuss category has
been introduced (making them visible in the sidebar of the discuss app).
When an ai chat is expanded in full view, this category is automatically
unfolded and all the other ones are folded.

A new thread action "delete-ai-chat" has also been added to give the users
the ability to delete their AI conversations themselves.
For this purpose, the `/ai/close_ai_chat` route which was previously used
every time an ai chat was closed to delete the channel if needed has been
replaced by a simple unlink (the checks are now done on the client side),
because only used for internal users: the channel is already deleted if a
guest leaves an empty livechat channel, and one should keep the ones where
a guest sent a message. ACLs have been added so that users can unlink their
own AI chat channels.

Some other related changes have been done such as adding a new AI category
in the messaging menu, showing the AI agent partner on the livechat session's
kanban cards,...

Task-6007887

Fix a concurrency race condition in the product catalog where rapid quantity updates could result in incorrect final quantities on Sale Order Lines (SOL).

Steps to produce:
---
- We need a DB with too many products. Also it might not be easy to reproduce the issue locally. Try runbot.
- Open a Sale Order (SO) and open the Product Catalog.
- Rapidly change or paste quantities (e.g., changing from 1 to 100) across multiple records very fast.
- Return to the SO. Some lines intermittently retain an intermediate quantity (e.g., qty = 1) instead of the final entered value.

Cause:
---
- This is a concurrency issue. In the faulty cases, the `update_order_line_info` setting quantity to 1 takes a few seconds to resolve, while the update setting quantity to 100 resolves faster (around 200ms). This cause the SOL final quantity set to 1.

Fix:
---
- We can chain RPC calls to ensure that each request is completed before starting the next one.

Backport of ef9554ad95d5e39ab7b550db0d39454373f99aed

opw-6282877

---

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#269750