Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

`Registry.check_indexes` derives a column index's name as `<table>__<column>_index`, which does **not** encode the access method, and only creates the index when no index of that name already exists. It never inspects the access method of an existing index.

As a consequence, changing a field's `index=` kind on an **already-indexed** column is silently ignored on existing databases. For example `account.move.name` was changed from a plain btree index to `index='trigram'`:

```python
name = fields.Char(
    ...
    index='trigram',
)
```
On a fresh database this creates the expected GIN/trigram index. On any database that already had the btree index, the old btree index keeps its name, so `check_indexes` finds the name present and does nothing. The `(=)ilike` searches the trigram index was meant to accelerate keep falling back to sequential scans, with no error or warning.

Current behavior before PR:

### Steps to reproduce

1. Install a module on an existing DB while a `Char` field is `index=True` (btree).
2. Change the field to `index='trigram'` and upgrade the module.
3. `\d <table>` in psql — the index is still `USING btree`, not `USING gin`.

Desired behavior after PR is merged:

`check_indexes` now also reads each existing index's access method (`pg_am.amname`). When the method no longer matches what the field expects (`gin` for trigram, `btree` otherwise), the stale index is dropped and recreated. The drop is issued inside the **same savepoint** as the recreate, so a failed rebuild (e.g. a lock timeout) rolls the drop back and never leaves the column without an index.

Scope: only the access method is reconciled. A change that alters solely the partial predicate (`btree` -> `btree_not_null`) keeps the same method and is intentionally left untouched.

### Notes

- This extends the existing index-management logic in place and keeps the current "keep unexpected index" behaviour for fields that dropped `index=` entirely; only fields that still want an index, of a different method, are rebuilt.
- Trigram rebuilds still require the `pg_trgm` extension; without it the GIN index is skipped exactly as before (`self.has_trigram` guard).


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

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

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
- Install `mrp`
- Create a Manufacturing Order
- In the `Work Orders` tab, add a work order with an `Expected Duration` of 15 seconds (00:15)
- Confirm the Manufacturing Order
- Start the work order timer
- Let it run for 19 seconds and pause it
- Open the Productivity report through the `external link` icon

Issue:
------
The time split between productive time and reduced-speed time is off by
one second when the elapsed duration exceeds the expected duration.

Example:
Observed:
- Fully Productive Time: 14 s
- Reduced Speed:        5 s

Expected:
- Fully Productive Time: 15 s
- Reduced Speed:        4 s

Cause:
-------
When click into `Pause` button it trigger `button_pending` -> `stop_employee` -> `_close`
In  `_close()` computes the boundary between productive and performance
time by subtracting the excess from the end
of the timer:

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b1a6682896a4f113799340a768ec2eb2b8bdc69d/addons/mrp/models/mrp_workcenter.py#L594

`wo.duration` is the sum of all productivity record durations, each
stored as `round((date_end - date_start).total_seconds() / 60, 2)`.
For 19 elapsed seconds: `round(19 / 60, 2) = 0.32` min, so:

    excess  = 0.32 - 0.25 = 0.07 min = 4.2 s
    productive_date_end = T+19s - 4.2s = T+14.8s   ← fractional second

`_compute_duration` then strips sub-second precision via
`.replace(microsecond=0)`, truncating T+14.8s to T+14s. 

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b1a6682896a4f113799340a768ec2eb2b8bdc69d/addons/mrp/models/mrp_workcenter.py#L542

As a result:
  - Record 1 (productive): T → T+14s  → 14 s = 0.23 min  (wrong)
  - Record 2 (performance): T+14s → T+19s → 5 s = 0.08 min (wrong)

The rounding of `wo.duration` from the true value (0.3166… min) to
0.32 min shifts the computed boundary by 0.8 s, which `.replace
(microsecond=0)` then truncates, silently stealing one second from
productive time and adding it to reduced-speed time.

Fix:
---
Compute the productive/performance boundary using actual elapsed seconds
instead of rounded float durations.

For the common single-timer case `remaining_expected_seconds = 0.25 * 60
= 15.0` (exact), so `productive_date_end = T+15.000000s` — no fractional
part, nothing for `.replace(microsecond=0)` to truncate.

  - Record 1 (productive): T → T+15s  → 15 s = 0.25 min  ✓
  - Record 2 (performance): T+15s → T+19s → 4 s ≈ 0.07 min ✓

The multi-timer case (e.g. pause → resume → pause) is also handled
correctly

---

opw-6302745

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

## Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:
Setup plus video
1. Go to settings, enable "Automatic Valuation" and "Storeable Locations".
2. Navigate to Product Categories.
3. Create a new product category with the costing method Standard Price and the inventory valuation Automatic.
4. Navigate to Products, click into any product.
5. Add the new product category to this product under General Information.
6. Add any tax in the purchase tax field.
7. In the Accounting tab of the product, add any account to the Price Difference Account field.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i2DHEt0g9G5Edad_QB3QaFkOT49cbMAZ/view?usp=sharing

Instructions to reproduce error
1. Navigate to Purchase.
2. Add a customer, then add the configured product.
3. Add a tax to the line. Ensure that the tax and price_unit are nonzero.
4. Confirm the order.
5. Receive the product.
6. Create the bill.
7. Edit the tax on the vendor bill, then save the changes. Notice that the changes are kept.
8. Select Confirm. Notice that the changes to the tax line are not kept, and that the COGS lines appeared (with taxes applied to them).
9. Reset the bill to draft.
10. Click into the configured product and remove the product category.
11. Repeat steps 7-8 . No COGS lines, and the tax line is the manually set value.

## Current behavior before PR:
COGS lines with taxes have no net effect on any tax lines as they cancel each other out. However, their creation triggers the recalculation of all tax lines, undoing any manual adjustments to tax lines.

## Desired behavior after PR is merged:

This commit ensures that COGS lines are not considered base tax lines, so that their creation does not trigger the recalculation of other base tax lines.

opw-5387248


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

`*` = `ewaybill_Stock, sale_stock, purchase_stock`

**Steps to reproduce:**
* Install `l10n_in_ewabill_stock` and `l10n_in_sale_Stock`.
* Set the Default Tax Price Setting to "Tax Included".
* Create a Sales Order (e.g. unit price 300, qty 600, 18% GST) and confirm the Delivery Challan/Delivery Order.
* Generate an E-Way Bill from the Delivery Challan.

**Observed behavior:**
* The Taxable Amount and Total Invoice Amount are displayed incorrectly in the generated E-Way Bill, including both the printed document and the JSON.
* The `ewaybill_price_unit` shows the tax-excluded price (e.g. 254.24) instead of the original tax-included price (300), leading to a double tax exclusion when `compute_all` processes it.

**Cause:**
* `_l10n_in_get_product_price_unit` in both `l10n_in_sale_stock` and `l10n_in_purchase_stock` unconditionally used `price_subtotal / qty` to compute the E-Way Bill price unit. `price_subtotal` is always tax-excluded, so for tax-included prices, the tax was already stripped.
* `_l10n_in_tax_details_by_stock_move` then passed this already tax-excluded price to `compute_all` with taxes that have `price_include=True`, causing `compute_all` to strip the tax a second time (e.g. 254.24 / 1.18 = 215.46 instead of the correct 254.24).

**Fix:**
* Check whether any of the line's taxes have `price_include` set. If so, use `price_total / qty` (which preserves the tax-included price) so that `compute_all` can correctly extract the tax. Otherwise, continue using `price_subtotal / qty` as before.

opw-6273101

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#268504

Currently, flexible employees can request a multi-day leave spanning a public holiday when the leave type includes public holidays in duration. However, requesting the public holiday date alone is rejected.

### **Steps to reproduce:**
- Create a public holiday.
- Create a time off type with "Public Holiday Included" enabled.
- Select/create an employee with a flexible work schedule and its time zone must be same as admin.
- Request a time off on the public holiday date only.

### **Observed Behavior:**
The request is rejected because its duration is computed as 0 days.

### **Expected Behavior:**
The request should be allowed and count as 1 day, consistent with the multi-day request behavior.

### **Root Cause:**
At [1], a dedicated duration computation path is used for single-day leaves of flexible employees. This logic always retrieves overlapping public holidays and computes the leave duration based on the remaining intervals. As a result, a leave requested entirely on a public holiday is computed as 0 days, even when `include_public_holidays_in_duration` is enabled.

[1]- https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/242f6d3cf7288853f163ac6986a3b7aa4279efaf/addons/hr_holidays/models/hr_leave.py#L436-L444

### **Fix:**
This commit ensures that the `include_public_holidays_in_duration` setting is taken into account when computing single-day leave durations for flexible employees

**opw-6284768**

Step to reproduce:
- install purchase, pos_sale
- from setting enable mto route and ship later feature for pos
- from routes, unarchive mto route
- create a product, add mto and buy route, add a vendor
- create a SO with that product, qty  = 5
- open that quotation in pos and fulfill the order, set ship later date
- go to backend and open purchase

Observation:
- purchase qty is 10

Cause:
- the procurement for the order is created 2 times
- once from `_launch_stock_rule_from_pos_order_lines`
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0b17840fb3cc72935e1a6302a057fb55c253c498/addons/point_of_sale/models/pos_order.py#L1185-L1191
- again from `_action_launch_stock_rule`
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0b17840fb3cc72935e1a6302a057fb55c253c498/addons/sale_stock/models/sale_order.py#L180-L182

- later as vendor is same, both procurements are merged and PO quantity is updated to 10

Fix:
- we skip the procurement trgger from `_action_launch_stock_rule` when confirming the sale order

Note: After this fix, SO will not have a PO linked to it, as the SO is now transfered to pos, we have to go to pos and fulfill the delivery there.

opw-6259660

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

Step to reproduce:
- install l10n_co_dian and pos
- open pos and click on create a new partner from partner list
- enter name ex. "temp", identification number, click on form
- notice a `refresh icon` is visible: click on it.

Observation:
- the dialog is closed and partner is selected with "temp" name

Expected:
- with valid government credentials and a valid identification number,
the refresh action should also update the partner data on the POS side

Cause:
- the refresh button triggers the `button_l10n_co_dian_refresh_data` action,
which fetches the legal name and email from the government service
- although the backend record is correctly updated, the new values are not
immediately synchronized with the POS
- when the refresh button is clicked, editPartner() first triggers
`web_save` using the temporary "temp" name and immediately reads the
partner data afterward
- the refresh action executes later and updates the contact with the fetched
legal information, but the POS is not aware of these subsequent changes

Fix:
- read the data again if there is any update caused by this action.
- this is done by overriding `afterExecuteActionButton` of FormController class

opw-6198035

### Steps to reproduce:

- Ensure `sale_stock_renting` is installed
- Enable Multi-Steps Routes > Unarchive MTO
- Create a product P with a BoM and the routes MTO + manufacture
- Create anc confirm a sale order for A unit of P
- Log in with an other user with with mrp User rights and sales User: Own Documents Only (he should not have access to the SO)
- Open the MO, add a component line and save
#### > Access Error: Blame the following rule: - Personal Order

### Cause of the issue:

Writing on the `move_raw_ids` will trigger a call of the `_autoconfirm_production` in order to confirm the newly created move: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/e447f4849056a0aab35966fb6ba595ebaadb79ab/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L990-L991 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/e447f4849056a0aab35966fb6ba595ebaadb79ab/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L1422-L1423 During this confirmation process, one calls the `_merge_moves` method in order to  merge this new move (if relevant) to any already existing one. https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/e447f4849056a0aab35966fb6ba595ebaadb79ab/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1575-L1576 Now, the issue is that, `sale_stock_renting` modeule overrides the method `_prepare_merge_moves_distinct_fields` determining the fields relevant to the merge by requiring a read access to the `is_rental_order` compute field of the `sale_order` linked to the MO:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/b66097122ba3a758734ac6fb2b26579c35cb72c2/sale_stock_renting/models/stock_move.py#L34-L40
However, due to the 'Personal Orders' ir.rule, the user does not have a read access to this record:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/e447f4849056a0aab35966fb6ba595ebaadb79ab/addons/sale/security/ir_rules.xml#L44-L49

Enterprise: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/121135

opw-6275658

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

### Steps to reproduce:

- Ensure `sale_stock_renting` is installed
- Enable Multi-Steps Routes > Unarchive MTO
- Create a product P with a BoM and the routes MTO + manufacture
- Create anc confirm a sale order for A unit of P
- Log in with an other user with with mrp User rights and sales User: Own Documents Only (he should not have access to the SO)
- Open the MO, add a component line and save
#### > Access Error: Blame the following rule: - Personal Order

### Cause of the issue:

Writing on the `move_raw_ids` will trigger a call of the `_autoconfirm_production` in order to confirm the newly created move: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/e447f4849056a0aab35966fb6ba595ebaadb79ab/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L990-L991 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/e447f4849056a0aab35966fb6ba595ebaadb79ab/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L1422-L1423
During this confirmation process, one calls the `_merge_moves` method in order to  merge this new move (if relevant) to any already existing one. https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/e447f4849056a0aab35966fb6ba595ebaadb79ab/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1575-L1576
Now, the issue is that, `sale_stock_renting` module overrides the method `_prepare_merge_moves_distinct_fields` determining the fields relevant to the merge by requiring a read access to the `is_rental_order` compute field of the `sale_order` linked to the MO:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/b66097122ba3a758734ac6fb2b26579c35cb72c2/sale_stock_renting/models/stock_move.py#L34-L40
However, due to the 'Personal Orders' ir.rule, the user does not have a read access to this record:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/e447f4849056a0aab35966fb6ba595ebaadb79ab/addons/sale/security/ir_rules.xml#L44-L49

Community: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/271017

opw-6275658

When a customer books through Reserve with Google, the createBooking payload carries the booker given_name and family_name next to the email, but the handler passed only the normalized email to _mail_find_partner_from_emails. The new res.partner was therefore created with its name falling back to the email, see
 
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/aa7b5921191a0ff53ef1cc32af99fe458c45c0da/addons/mail/models/res_partner.py#L177

That name then flows into the calendar.event name, the attendee common_name and the contact details, all showing the email instead of the customer name. The module has read neither field since it was added in https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/2e855b910173b56e8501d0ebe9ee6f83ac5845bc.

Build the booker name from given_name and family_name and pass it with the email through formataddr in google_reserve_booking_create, so a newly created partner is named after the customer. A partner matched on an existing email keeps its current name.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Enable Reserve with Google on an appointment type.
2. Book a slot from Google Maps with given name John and family name Doe.
3. Open the created booking and its contact in Odoo.

=> the contact name is the email instead of John Doe

Ticket [link](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project/49/tasks/6232318)
opw-6232318