**Steps to reproduce:**
* Install the **l10n_cl_edi** module.
* Go to **Accounting → Configuration → CAFs**, create a new CAF, and upload a valid CAF [XML](https://www.odoo.com/mail/message/1097235975) file.
* Create a new **Purchase Journal** with **Use Documents** enabled.
* Create a vendor bill using this journal.
* Set the **Document Type** to **46 - Liquidación-Factura Electrónica**.
* Confirm the vendor bill.

**Observed behavior:**
* The Send button is not visible on the confirmed vendor bill despite the DTE being generated and `l10n_cl_dte_status` being set to `not_sent`.

**Cause:**
* `_compute_display_send_button` in `account` only returns `True` for sale documents (`is_sale_document()`), so the "Send" button — which opens the Send & Print dialog containing the "Send to SII" option — was never shown on vendor bills.
* `_get_move_constraints` in `account.move.send` unconditionally adds a `not_sale_document` constraint for non-sale documents, blocking the Send & Print dialog from processing vendor bills even if the button were visible.
* The cron's `cron_run_sii_workflow` only processes moves with `l10n_cl_dte_status = 'ask_for_status'`, skipping moves still in `not_sent` state.

**Fix:**
* Override `_compute_display_send_button` in `l10n_cl_edi` to also show the "Send" button on posted moves with `l10n_cl_dte_status == 'not_sent'`, matching the pattern used by `l10n_br_edi`.
* Override `_get_move_constraints` in `l10n_cl_edi` to remove the `not_sale_document` constraint for Chilean purchase documents with `not_sent` status, matching the pattern used by `l10n_br_edi`.

**REF**
 During this [refactor](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/103427/changes/f5617ecf7584cf019897408df94b002622f48d9d), these two methods were inadvertently missed and were not overridden 

opw-6300571

Currently, an error occurs when a user tries to send an sms to a visitor.

**Steps to Reproduce:**
 - Install `website_crm_sms` without demo data.
 - Go to `Website` > `Edit`, drag and drop another `Form` block.
 - Configure the form action to `Create an Opportunity` and `save`.
 - Fill in the required fields, including phone number and `Submit` the form.
 - Go to `Website` > `Reporting` > `Visitors` and click the `SMS` button on the visitor record.

`AttributeError: 'website.visitor' object has no attribute 'phone'`

After [this commit], which removed the mobile field from res.partner along with all related views, 
then it was updated to access the phone number from the website visitor.
When a user creates an opportunity through the website and then tries to send an sms from the 
corresponding visitor record, it raises an error [1] because it attempts to access the phone field on 
website.visitor. when an anonymous (non-logged-in) user creates an opportunity, clicking the
 sms button on the corresponding visitor record triggers error here [2].

This commit ensures that the correct mobile field is accessed from the website visitor.

[this commit]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/6b820eb6fc6f782ba6a83d605d87b4a1dd2a87be

[1]- https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/6a0e6443951053f8361e97f42e5e45c32bb73656/addons/website_crm_sms/models/website_visitor.py#L13

[2]- https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/6a0e6443951053f8361e97f42e5e45c32bb73656/addons/website_crm_sms/models/website_visitor.py#L20

sentry-7550340909

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#270118

Step to reproduce:
1. Install `website_link`
2. Open Website > Site > Link Tracker
3. Type in text into any pre-defined field (Campaign, Medium, Source)
4. Observe that the input is not showing all the typed characters

Issue:
- It's randomly removing characters, for example, type "1234567890" and observe

Cause:
- SelectMenu updates its internal searchValue only inside the debounced onInput handler `debouncedOnInput`. When an autocomplete callback reloads choices before that debounce fires, the component rerenders with a stale searchValue and writes that outdated value back into the controlled input, overwriting newer characters already typed by the user.

Solution:
- Update searchValue immediately on every raw input event and keep only the search callback debounced.
- Also reset searchValue to null when a required single-select is blurred while empty, so the input falls back 
  to the selected choice label instead of staying visually cleared.

opw-6000540

---

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#267974
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#255819

Steps to reproduce:
1. Install Knowledge.
2. Create an article.
3. Open the more actions menu.
4. Click "Add Cover".
5. Upload a cover image.

Issue:
- The upload crashes with the following traceback:
`Uncaught Promise > this.props.setAbortUploadsCallback is not a function`

Cause:
- `KnowledgeCoverSelector` extends the html_editor `ImageSelector`, whose upload flow registers an abort callback through setAbortUploadsCallback. The generic MediaDialog provides this callback, but KnowledgeCoverDialog renders KnowledgeCoverSelector directly and did not pass it. As a result, the inherited upload flow called a missing prop.

Solution:
- Pass setAbortUploadsCallback from KnowledgeCoverDialog to KnowledgeCoverSelector and abort pending uploads when the cover dialog is discarded.

Alternative approach: 
- Make ImageSelector tolerate callers that do not provide
  setAbortUploadsCallback by calling it with optional chaining.

opw-6176716

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120467
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#116906

### Issue
When you have an invoice partially paid via a method using an Outstanding Account, the payment can be kept open, leaving the invoice considered as partially paid

If a user with only "Invoicing & Banks" rights tries to reconcile a Bank Statement with the same partner, amount, and the invoice name as the memo, the automatic reconciliation fails to properly match the payment
Instead, the invoice is incorrectly considered as Fully Paid with an unwanted extra Account Receivable line added

### Cause
When a new Bank Statement is created,
`_try_auto_reconcile_statement_lines()` is called and matches the outstanding credit, which invokes `set_line_bank_statement_line()` In 19.0, this function creates a balancing line and triggers `move._compute_checked()` to update dependencies
Especially `_compute_is_reconciled`
But checked as been replaced by `review_state`
This FW port will use an update on the `review_state` instead of the `checked`

A user with "Invoicing & Banks" rights lacks the
`account.group_account_user` group, meaning the move is not marked as `reviewed`, preventing dependencies from computing correctly Consequently, the statement line's `amount_residual` is not cleared and the line is not removed from `remaining_st_line_ids`

Later in the process, `_try_auto_reconcile_statement_lines()` is called again with `with_user(SUPERUSER_ID)`
Because the payment matching was never finalized in the previous step, the engine fallback matches against the full invoice, adding an incorrect Account Receivable line to close it

### Steps to reproduce
- Install `accountant`
- Go to Accounting / Configuration / Accounting / Journals
- Open the Bank, under Incoming Payments tab, set the Manual Payment method's Outstanding Receipts account to 101403 Outstanding Receipts
- Update the Demo user's accounting rights to Invoicing & Banks
- Log in with the Demo user
- Create and confirm an invoice for Acme Corporation (Amount: $1100)
- Register a payment on the invoice (Amount: $500, Keep open)
- Copy the invoice name
- Open the Bank Reconciliation widget from the Accounting Dashboard
- Create and add a new Bank Statement Line (Label: Invoice name, Partner: Acme Corporation, Amount: $500)
Before the fix, an unexpected Account Receivable line is created and the invoice is marked as Fully Paid

### Notes
Instead of processing the entire block under SUPERUSER_ID, which would hide the creator identity in logs and chatter, the context key `skip_account_review_check=True` is injected during the automated statement line reconciliation
This safely bypasses the group check inside `_is_user_able_to_review` for this specific automated flow

A fallback using `.with_user(SUPERUSER_ID)` is already implemented twice within the same `_try_auto_reconcile_statement_lines` method for this specific use case, but avoiding it here preserves data auditability

opw-6077137

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#270080

### Issue
When you have an invoice partially paid via a method using an Outstanding Account, the payment can be kept open, leaving the invoice considered as partially paid

If a user with only "Invoicing & Banks" rights tries to reconcile a Bank Statement with the same partner, amount, and the invoice name as the memo, the automatic reconciliation fails to properly match the payment
Instead, the invoice is incorrectly considered as Fully Paid with an unwanted extra Account Receivable line added

### Cause
When a new Bank Statement is created, `_try_auto_reconcile_statement_lines()` is called and matches the outstanding credit, which invokes `set_line_bank_statement_line()`
This function creates a balancing line and triggers `move._compute_checked()` to update dependencies

However, `move.checked` requires `_is_user_able_to_review()` to be True
A user with "Invoicing & Banks" rights lacks the `account.group_account_user` group, meaning the move is not marked as checked, preventing dependencies from computing correctly
Consequently, the statement line's `amount_residual` is not cleared and the line is not removed from `remaining_st_line_ids`

Later in the process, `_try_auto_reconcile_statement_lines()` is called again with `with_user(SUPERUSER_ID)`
Because the payment matching was never finalized in the previous step, the engine fallback matches against the full invoice, adding an incorrect Account Receivable line to close it

### Steps to reproduce
- Install `accountant`
- Go to Accounting / Configuration / Accounting / Journals
- Open the Bank, under Incoming Payments tab, set the Manual Payment method's Outstanding Receipts account to 101403 Outstanding Receipts
- Update the Demo user's accounting rights to Invoicing & Banks
- Log in with the Demo user
- Create and confirm an invoice for Acme Corporation (Amount: $1100)
- Register a payment on the invoice (Amount: $500, Keep open)
- Copy the invoice name
- Open the Bank Reconciliation widget from the Accounting Dashboard
- Create and add a new Bank Statement Line (Label: Invoice name, Partner: Acme Corporation, Amount: $500)
Before the fix, an unexpected Account Receivable line is created and the invoice is marked as Fully Paid

### Notes
Instead of processing the entire block under SUPERUSER_ID, which would hide the creator identity in logs and chatter, the context key `skip_account_review_check=True` is injected during the automated statement line reconciliation
This safely bypasses the group check inside `_is_user_able_to_review` for this specific automated flow

A fallback using `.with_user(SUPERUSER_ID)` is already implemented twice within the same `_try_auto_reconcile_statement_lines` method for this specific use case, but avoiding it here preserves data auditability

opw-6077137

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120217
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118023

Steps to reproduce:
1. Open the Project application and open any project.
2. Filter the tasks by milestone (milestone deadlines appear as expected in the kanban view).
3. Open any task form view.
4. Click the browser's back button (or simply refresh the page while on the task kanban view).

Issue:
Milestone deadline dates disappear from the task Kanban cards and headers after navigating back or reloading.

Why this happens:
When hitting the browser back button or refreshing, the web client's router state recovery workflow executes (`loadRouterState` -> `loadState` -> `doAction` -> `_executeActWindowAction`). During this flow, `_getActionParams` checks if it can reuse the cached `lastAction`. However, due to a safety condition introduced in commit ab26f95893 to prevent embedded action showing across different projects, the router falls back to generating a fresh action request via `state.action`.

This forces `_loadAction` to fetch the action definition from the database. Because the original base action window `act_project_project_2_project_task_all` lacks the `display_milestone_deadline` key inside its default context dictionary, the reloaded view is rendered without the flags required by the frontend to display milestone deadlines.

opw-6283514

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#269781

The '/my/counters' route is hit a lot of times on big databases like odoo.com

One thing it does is a `self.env['documents.document].search_count([])`

With this commit, we use a subquery for the folder access instead of the current LEFT JOIN.
This ok since the number of folders is typically small compared to regular documents and the query is fast since it can use the index on 'type'

Before as portal user
------

2x Seq Scan

```
 Aggregate  (cost=1900290.73..1900290.74 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=282.271..282.276 rows=1 loops=1)
   Buffers: shared hit=66629
   ->  Hash Left Join  (cost=41649.94..1900044.55 rows=98472 width=0) (actual time=184.202..282.267 rows=3 loops=1)
         Hash Cond: (documents_document.folder_id = documents_document__folder_id.id)
         Filter: ((hashed SubPlan 2) OR ((documents_document.owner_id = 6) AND ((documents_document.shortcut_document_id IS NULL) OR (documents_document.shortcut_document_owner_id = 6))) OR (((documents_document.access_via_link)::text = ANY ('{edit,view}'::text[])) AND (documents_document.folder_id IS NOT NULL) AND ((hashed SubPlan 4) OR ((documents_document__folder_id.owner_id = 6) AND ((documents_document__folder_id.shortcut_document_id IS NULL) OR (documents_document__folder_id.shortcut_document_owner_id = 6)))) AND (documents_document.is_access_via_link_hidden IS NOT TRUE)))
         Rows Removed by Filter: 28085
         Buffers: shared hit=66629
         ->  Seq Scan on documents_document  (cost=0.00..1857903.54 rows=187073 width=26) (actual time=0.022..109.288 rows=28088 loops=1)
               Filter: ((active IS TRUE) AND ((hashed SubPlan 2) OR ((owner_id = 6) AND ((shortcut_document_id IS NULL) OR (shortcut_document_owner_id = 6))) OR (((access_via_link)::text = ANY ('{edit,view}'::text[])) AND (folder_id IS NOT NULL) AND (is_access_via_link_hidden IS NOT TRUE))))
               Rows Removed by Filter: 342576
               Buffers: shared hit=33313
               SubPlan 2
                 ->  Nested Loop  (cost=0.85..357.41 rows=99 width=4) (actual time=0.008..0.009 rows=0 loops=2)
                       Buffers: shared hit=6
                       ->  Index Scan using documents_access__partner_id_index on documents_access  (cost=0.43..105.55 rows=103 width=9) (actual time=0.008..0.008 rows=0 loops=2)
                             Index Cond: (partner_id = 7)
                             Filter: ((expiration_date IS NULL) OR (expiration_date >= '2026-06-18 10:16:38'::timestamp without time zone))
                             Buffers: shared hit=6
                       ->  Index Scan using documents_document_pkey on documents_document documents_access__document_id  (cost=0.42..2.44 rows=1 width=9) (never executed)
                             Index Cond: (id = documents_access.document_id)
                             Filter: (((access_via_link)::text <> 'none'::text) OR ((documents_access.role)::text = ANY ('{view,edit}'::text[])))
         ->  Hash  (cost=37016.64..37016.64 rows=370664 width=16) (actual time=164.521..164.521 rows=370664 loops=1)
               Buckets: 524288  Batches: 1  Memory Usage: 17824kB
               Buffers: shared hit=33310
               ->  Seq Scan on documents_document documents_document__folder_id  (cost=0.00..37016.64 rows=370664 width=16) (actual time=0.005..100.491 rows=370664 loops=1)
                     Buffers: shared hit=33310
         SubPlan 4
           ->  Nested Loop  (cost=0.85..357.41 rows=99 width=4) (actual time=0.003..0.003 rows=0 loops=1)
                 Buffers: shared hit=3
                 ->  Index Scan using documents_access__partner_id_index on documents_access documents_access_1  (cost=0.43..105.55 rows=103 width=9) (actual time=0.002..0.003 rows=0 loops=1)
                       Index Cond: (partner_id = 7)
                       Filter: ((expiration_date IS NULL) OR (expiration_date >= '2026-06-18 10:16:38'::timestamp without time zone))
                       Buffers: shared hit=3
                 ->  Index Scan using documents_document_pkey on documents_document documents_access__document_id_1  (cost=0.42..2.44 rows=1 width=9) (never executed)
                       Index Cond: (id = documents_access_1.document_id)
                       Filter: (((access_via_link)::text <> 'none'::text) OR ((documents_access_1.role)::text = ANY ('{view,edit}'::text[])))
 Planning:
   Buffers: shared hit=69
 Planning Time: 1.708 ms
 Execution Time: 282.344 ms
```

After  as portal user
-----

Only 1x Seq Scan
```
Aggregate  (cost=2004948.33..2004948.34 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=116.161..116.165 rows=1 loops=1)
   Buffers: shared hit=37942
   ->  Seq Scan on documents_document  (cost=145660.16..2004490.36 rows=183187 width=0) (actual time=24.635..116.155 rows=3 loops=1)
         Filter: ((active IS TRUE) AND ((hashed SubPlan 2) OR ((owner_id = 6) AND ((shortcut_document_id IS NULL) OR (shortcut_document_owner_id = 6))) OR (((access_via_link)::text = ANY ('{edit,view}'::text[])) AND (hashed SubPlan 5) AND (is_access_via_link_hidden IS NOT TRUE))))
         Rows Removed by Filter: 370661
         Buffers: shared hit=37942
         SubPlan 2
           ->  Nested Loop  (cost=0.85..357.41 rows=99 width=4) (actual time=0.008..0.009 rows=0 loops=1)
                 Buffers: shared hit=3
                 ->  Index Scan using documents_access__partner_id_index on documents_access  (cost=0.43..105.55 rows=103 width=9) (actual time=0.008..0.008 rows=0 loops=1)
                       Index Cond: (partner_id = 7)
                       Filter: ((expiration_date IS NULL) OR (expiration_date >= '2026-06-18 10:15:10'::timestamp without time zone))
                       Buffers: shared hit=3
                 ->  Index Scan using documents_document_pkey on documents_document documents_access__document_id  (cost=0.42..2.44 rows=1 width=9) (never executed)
                       Index Cond: (id = documents_access.document_id)
                       Filter: (((access_via_link)::text <> 'none'::text) OR ((documents_access.role)::text = ANY ('{view,edit}'::text[])))
         SubPlan 5
           ->  Index Scan using documents_document__type_index on documents_document documents_document_1  (cost=0.42..145625.73 rows=13772 width=4) (actual time=11.688..11.689 rows=0 loops=1)
                 Index Cond: ((type)::text = 'folder'::text)
                 Filter: ((hashed SubPlan 4) OR ((owner_id = 6) AND ((shortcut_document_id IS NULL) OR (shortcut_document_owner_id = 6))))
                 Rows Removed by Filter: 28198
                 Buffers: shared hit=4629
                 SubPlan 4
                   ->  Nested Loop  (cost=0.85..357.41 rows=99 width=4) (actual time=0.002..0.002 rows=0 loops=1)
                         Buffers: shared hit=3
                         ->  Index Scan using documents_access__partner_id_index on documents_access documents_access_1  (cost=0.43..105.55 rows=103 width=9) (actual time=0.001..0.002 rows=0 loops=1)
                               Index Cond: (partner_id = 7)
                               Filter: ((expiration_date IS NULL) OR (expiration_date >= '2026-06-18 10:15:10'::timestamp without time zone))
                               Buffers: shared hit=3
                         ->  Index Scan using documents_document_pkey on documents_document documents_access__document_id_1  (cost=0.42..2.44 rows=1 width=9) (never executed)
                               Index Cond: (id = documents_access_1.document_id)
                               Filter: (((access_via_link)::text <> 'none'::text) OR ((documents_access_1.role)::text = ANY ('{view,edit}'::text[])))
 Planning:
   Buffers: shared hit=56
 Planning Time: 1.544 ms
 Execution Time: 116.216 ms
```

Before as internal user
--------
```
Aggregate  (cost=1902165.43..1902165.44 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=332.919..332.925 rows=1 loops=1)
   Buffers: shared hit=69223 read=370
   ->  Hash Left Join  (cost=41649.94..1901908.04 rows=102955 width=0) (actual time=176.179..332.325 rows=10040 loops=1)
         Hash Cond: (documents_document.folder_id = documents_document__folder_id.id)
         Filter: ((hashed SubPlan 2) OR ((documents_document.owner_id = 1054906) AND ((documents_document.shortcut_document_id IS NULL) OR (documents_document.shortcut_document_owner_id = 1054906))) OR (((documents_document.access_internal)::text = ANY ('{view,edit}'::text[])) AND ((documents_document.company_id = 1) OR (documents_document.company_id IS NULL))) OR (((documents_document.access_via_link)::text = ANY ('{view,edit}'::text[])) AND (documents_document.folder_id IS NOT NULL) AND ((hashed SubPlan 4) OR ((documents_document__folder_id.owner_id = 1054906) AND ((documents_document__folder_id.shortcut_document_id IS NULL) OR (documents_document__folder_id.shortcut_document_owner_id = 1054906))) OR (((documents_document__folder_id.access_internal)::text = ANY ('{view,edit}'::text[])) AND ((documents_document__folder_id.company_id = 1) OR (documents_document__folder_id.company_id IS NULL)))) AND (documents_document.is_access_via_link_hidden IS NOT TRUE)))
         Rows Removed by Filter: 27228
         Buffers: shared hit=69223 read=370
         ->  Seq Scan on documents_document  (cost=0.00..1859756.86 rows=190950 width=35) (actual time=15.029..155.718 rows=37268 loops=1)
               Filter: ((active IS TRUE) AND ((hashed SubPlan 2) OR ((owner_id = 1054906) AND ((shortcut_document_id IS NULL) OR (shortcut_document_owner_id = 1054906))) OR (((access_internal)::text = ANY ('{view,edit}'::text[])) AND ((company_id = 1) OR (company_id IS NULL))) OR (((access_via_link)::text = ANY ('{view,edit}'::text[])) AND (folder_id IS NOT NULL) AND (is_access_via_link_hidden IS NOT TRUE))))
               Rows Removed by Filter: 333396
               Buffers: shared hit=33931 read=370
               SubPlan 2
                 ->  Nested Loop  (cost=0.85..357.41 rows=99 width=4) (actual time=0.155..7.920 rows=148 loops=2)
                       Buffers: shared hit=1612 read=370
                       ->  Index Scan using documents_access__partner_id_index on documents_access  (cost=0.43..105.55 rows=103 width=9) (actual time=0.110..3.448 rows=200 loops=2)
                             Index Cond: (partner_id = 1800102)
                             Filter: ((expiration_date IS NULL) OR (expiration_date >= '2026-06-18 12:17:29'::timestamp without time zone))
                             Buffers: shared hit=192 read=190
                       ->  Index Scan using documents_document_pkey on documents_document documents_access__document_id  (cost=0.42..2.44 rows=1 width=9) (actual time=0.022..0.022 rows=1 loops=400)
                             Index Cond: (id = documents_access.document_id)
                             Filter: (((access_via_link)::text <> 'none'::text) OR ((documents_access.role)::text = ANY ('{view,edit}'::text[])))
                             Rows Removed by Filter: 0
                             Buffers: shared hit=1420 read=180
         ->  Hash  (cost=37016.64..37016.64 rows=370664 width=25) (actual time=157.822..157.823 rows=370664 loops=1)
               Buckets: 524288  Batches: 1  Memory Usage: 21336kB
               Buffers: shared hit=33310
               ->  Seq Scan on documents_document documents_document__folder_id  (cost=0.00..37016.64 rows=370664 width=25) (actual time=0.005..96.730 rows=370664 loops=1)
                     Buffers: shared hit=33310
         SubPlan 4
           ->  Nested Loop  (cost=0.85..357.41 rows=99 width=4) (actual time=0.019..0.372 rows=148 loops=1)
                 Buffers: shared hit=991
                 ->  Index Scan using documents_access__partner_id_index on documents_access documents_access_1  (cost=0.43..105.55 rows=103 width=9) (actual time=0.005..0.078 rows=200 loops=1)
                       Index Cond: (partner_id = 1800102)
                       Filter: ((expiration_date IS NULL) OR (expiration_date >= '2026-06-18 12:17:29'::timestamp without time zone))
                       Buffers: shared hit=191
                 ->  Index Scan using documents_document_pkey on documents_document documents_access__document_id_1  (cost=0.42..2.44 rows=1 width=9) (actual time=0.001..0.001 rows=1 loops=200)
                       Index Cond: (id = documents_access_1.document_id)
                       Filter: (((access_via_link)::text <> 'none'::text) OR ((documents_access_1.role)::text = ANY ('{view,edit}'::text[])))
                       Rows Removed by Filter: 0
                       Buffers: shared hit=800
 Planning:
   Buffers: shared hit=69 read=8
 Planning Time: 2.116 ms
 Execution Time: 333.013 ms
```

After as internal user
--------
```
Aggregate  (cost=2006950.17..2006950.18 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=157.117..157.121 rows=1 loops=1)
   Buffers: shared hit=39918
   ->  Seq Scan on documents_document  (cost=145798.74..2006482.26 rows=187165 width=0) (actual time=16.595..156.590 rows=10040 loops=1)
         Filter: ((active IS TRUE) AND ((hashed SubPlan 2) OR ((owner_id = 1054906) AND ((shortcut_document_id IS NULL) OR (shortcut_document_owner_id = 1054906))) OR (((access_internal)::text = ANY ('{view,edit}'::text[])) AND ((company_id = 1) OR (company_id IS NULL))) OR (((access_via_link)::text = ANY ('{view,edit}'::text[])) AND (hashed SubPlan 5) AND (is_access_via_link_hidden IS NOT TRUE))))
         Rows Removed by Filter: 360624
         Buffers: shared hit=39918
         SubPlan 2
           ->  Nested Loop  (cost=0.85..357.41 rows=99 width=4) (actual time=0.019..1.016 rows=148 loops=1)
                 Buffers: shared hit=991
                 ->  Index Scan using documents_access__partner_id_index on documents_access  (cost=0.43..105.55 rows=103 width=9) (actual time=0.012..0.262 rows=200 loops=1)
                       Index Cond: (partner_id = 1800102)
                       Filter: ((expiration_date IS NULL) OR (expiration_date >= '2026-06-18 12:16:29'::timestamp without time zone))
                       Buffers: shared hit=191
                 ->  Index Scan using documents_document_pkey on documents_document documents_access__document_id  (cost=0.42..2.44 rows=1 width=9) (actual time=0.004..0.004 rows=1 loops=200)
                       Index Cond: (id = documents_access.document_id)
                       Filter: (((access_via_link)::text <> 'none'::text) OR ((documents_access.role)::text = ANY ('{view,edit}'::text[])))
                       Rows Removed by Filter: 0
                       Buffers: shared hit=800
         SubPlan 5
           ->  Index Scan using documents_document__type_index on documents_document documents_document_1  (cost=0.42..145763.43 rows=14124 width=4) (actual time=0.429..14.916 rows=4625 loops=1)
                 Index Cond: ((type)::text = 'folder'::text)
                 Filter: ((hashed SubPlan 4) OR ((owner_id = 1054906) AND ((shortcut_document_id IS NULL) OR (shortcut_document_owner_id = 1054906))) OR (((access_internal)::text = ANY ('{view,edit}'::text[])) AND ((company_id = 1) OR (company_id IS NULL))))
                 Rows Removed by Filter: 23573
                 Buffers: shared hit=5617
                 SubPlan 4
                   ->  Nested Loop  (cost=0.85..357.41 rows=99 width=4) (actual time=0.007..0.390 rows=148 loops=1)
                         Buffers: shared hit=991
                         ->  Index Scan using documents_access__partner_id_index on documents_access documents_access_1  (cost=0.43..105.55 rows=103 width=9) (actual time=0.003..0.074 rows=200 loops=1)
                               Index Cond: (partner_id = 1800102)
                               Filter: ((expiration_date IS NULL) OR (expiration_date >= '2026-06-18 12:16:29'::timestamp without time zone))
                               Buffers: shared hit=191
                         ->  Index Scan using documents_document_pkey on documents_document documents_access__document_id_1  (cost=0.42..2.44 rows=1 width=9) (actual time=0.001..0.001 rows=1 loops=200)
                               Index Cond: (id = documents_access_1.document_id)
                               Filter: (((access_via_link)::text <> 'none'::text) OR ((documents_access_1.role)::text = ANY ('{view,edit}'::text[])))
                               Rows Removed by Filter: 0
                               Buffers: shared hit=800
 Planning:
   Buffers: shared hit=56
 Planning Time: 1.569 ms
 Execution Time: 157.171 ms
```

portal user
before https://explain.dalibo.com/plan/e1e755fg7bb26a21
after https://explain.dalibo.com/plan/hb5fa1d201ff164g

internal user with few documents access
before https://explain.dalibo.com/plan/f753bf2aa244dg63
after https://explain.dalibo.com/plan/538dg5ecb120ch84

internal user with *lots* of documents access
before https://explain.dalibo.com/plan/cf76h84537f7ge4a
after https://explain.dalibo.com/plan/45317a5e3168c5bc

## Issue
In the *Data Recycle* app, when grouping records, the record IDs are summed up and appear right next to the name of each group, which:

1. truncates the name and count of the groups
2. does not make sense (summing up IDs is pointless)

<img width="720" height="281" alt="115492" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/567902af-b356-4a0a-8b1e-2ed101a2eba3" />

## Steps to reproduce
1. Install *Data Recycle* (`data_recycle`)
2. In Data Cleaning > Configuration > Recycle Records, create a new rule:
    - Any name
    - Model: *Contact*
    - Filter: *Name contains G* (or anything else that matches some records)
4. Click the *Run Now* button in the upper left corner
5. In Data Cleaning > Recyle Records, group the records by any field (e.g., *Model*)
6. **The name of the group (Contact) is truncated, making it and the record count unreadable. This is due to the sum of Record ID being displayed in the same row, even though that information is irrelevant.**

## Cause
Similarly to related enterprise PR https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/115492, the *Record ID* field of the `data_recycle.record` model uses the default `sum` aggregator.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/6de867f1c92bacedc0574b63e9e6a2a57fe805dd/addons/data_recycle/models/data_recycle_record.py#L17

related: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/115492

opw-6219824

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265163

## Issue
In the *Data Cleaning* app, when grouping records, the record IDs are summed up and appear right next to the name of each group, which:
1. truncates the name and count of the groups
2. does not make sense (summing up IDs is pointless)

<img width="709" height="374" alt="6166623-before" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/9d80b1ec-49c0-4b7f-8c6e-53846f9e433e" />

## Steps to reproduce
1. Install *Data Cleaning* (`data_cleaning`)
2. In Data Cleaning > Configuration > Field Cleaning, create a new rule (or edit an existing one):
    - Any name
    - Model: *Contact*
    - Rule:
        - Field to Clean: *Name (Contact)*
        - Action: *Set Type Case* - Case: *All Uppercase*
4. Click the *Clean* button in the upper left corner
5. In Data Cleaning > Field Cleaning, group the records by any field (e.g., *Field*)
6. **The name of the group (_Name (Contact)_) is truncated, making it and the record count unreadable. This is due to the sum of _Record ID_ being displayed in the same row, even though that information is irrelevant.**

## Cause
The *Record ID* (`res_id`) field is an Integer field defined [here](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/3603afdd5c0d19c9276f3855156be4040ab5717d/data_cleaning/models/data_cleaning_record.py#L20). By default, Integer fields have the `sum` aggregator:

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/681610c002a310f1c73fc2e5bec8d3dae27bc4a7/odoo/orm/fields_numeric.py#L17-L23

This causes the IDs to be summed up and appear in the group headers.

## After

<img width="740" height="370" alt="6166623-after" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/a42d8f58-06dc-4308-8b6f-1ab09e8034f8" />

related: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/265163

opw-6166623

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#115492

# How to reproduce
- Create an Event registration
- Add a follower
- Click on the enveloppe icon next to the sender's name in the chatter

# The problem
A traceback appears

# Cause of the issue
When clicking on the enveloppe, we display the `message_notification_popover` that calls `isFollowerNotification` to filter follower notifications from other ones. This function compares the ids of the followers of the notification to it's res_partner_id : https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ee12a62407fa1c2dbca00d77dc6d5bd16eac1e43/addons/mail/static/src/core/common/notification_model.js#L101-L105

But in our case res_partner_id is undefined because it is not a required field and it will not be set in the case of mass_mailing :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ee12a62407fa1c2dbca00d77dc6d5bd16eac1e43/addons/mail/models/mail_notification.py#L23-L27

opw-6178443

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265263

When moving an order (Order A) to a table that already has an order (Order B), the merged order only reprints Order B's products. The products from Order A are missing from the preparation reprint.

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
* Open a POS session on a Restaurant POS
* Create an order (Order A) for Table 1
* Create a second order (Order B) for Table 2
* Transfer/Merge Order A to Table 2
* Reprint the preparation order

> Observation:
Only the products that were already on Table 2 (Order B) appear on the reprint. Products from Order A are missing.

Why the fix:
------------
mergeOrders correctly transfers kitchen history
(last_order_preparation_change.lines) via handlePreparationHistory, but does not update uiState.lastPrints on the destination order. The reprint button uses lastPrints.at(-1) when there are no pending changes, so it only shows the destination order's last print batch — ignoring the merged lines entirely.

Implementation:
After the merge loop, build a consolidated lastPrints entry from the destination order's last_order_preparation_change.lines (which now contains lines from both orders) and push it onto
destOrder.uiState.lastPrints so that reprint reflects the full merged state.

opw-6060684

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#270311
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#256309

*= website_partnership, website_crm_partner_assign 

Currently, an error occurs when users try to access the `/partners` website
page after upgrading database to saas-19.2.

This issue occurs because recent changes introduced in PR [1] added a new
template as id `index_layout`. Inside this template, a `t-call` element was
using a nested `t-set` element to define `additional_title`. We were
referencing this `t-set` element in the XPath of the `index` template to
override the value of `additional_title`.

However, recent changes removed the `t-set` from the `t-call` and replaced
it with a direct variable assignment inside the `t-call`. During the upgrade,
the migration script automatically moves the `additional_title` attribute
into `t-call` and removes the `t-set` from the `t-call` (see the script and
related changes in [2]).

As a result, the XPath expression that targets the `t-set` element fails because
the referenced element no longer exists, which causes the error.

This commit fixes the above issue by adapting the `t-call` element to match
the recent changes introduced in [2]. Instead of relying on a nested `t-set`
element, it now uses the variable directly as an attribute within the
`t-call`, and updates the corresponding attribute child accordingly.


[1]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/711c3baad58f3e0f1dc39cb90eb8176aba91e9dd
[2]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/235469/changes#diff-29ae6f0bcf846a2fcaffc38fdd0d3b19ea328c133ff4dfe18cc9725715f34dd9


sentry-7400315548

### **Issue**

Self-orders created through the mobile QR menu or kiosk were not displaying table information in the Order Info section of the payment screen.

### **Root Cause**

The Order Details dialog relied on `order.getTable()` to retrieve table information. However, self-orders only store the table reference through `table_id`, which was not properly handled when rendering the dialog, resulting in missing table information.

### **Solution**

This PR introduces the following changes:

* Add a dedicated `getTableInfo()` helper in `pos_restaurant` to retrieve table information from the order.
* Use `getTableInfo()` when building the Order Details dialog fields.
* Allow self-order flows to provide table information through `table_id`, ensuring table details are displayed correctly.

### **Steps to Reproduce**

1. Enable the following options in POS Configuration:

   * QR Menu & Ordering
   * Service at Table
   * Online Payment
2. Open a self-order from the mobile QR menu
3. Select a table and complete the payment
4. Open the POS session
5. Open the paid self-order
6. Click the **Details** button on the right side

### **Video Reproduction**

https://drive.google.com/file/d/138AoJCTF1HNlCGFgk9BRTb0UTai-uXX7/view?usp=sharing

### **Before**

Table information was not displayed in the **Order Info** section for self-orders.

### **After**

Table information is now correctly displayed for self-orders.


opw-6179516


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

**Steps to reproduce:**

To test this, you will need an official DIAN setup, because this error comes from the response to our API call to the DIAN.

- Setup the DIAN in a colombian company
- Open the PoS
- Order a product
- Before paying, make the amount we are paying bigger than the amount due
- We get an error response from the API, the error is saying that the total due does not match what we paid

**Why the fix:**

Currently, the xml is rejected because the sum of the **PaidAmount** in the **PrepaidPayment** tag is not equal to what we are trying to pay for.

This is happening because to avoid the fact that we can not send a line with negative amount, we used the **abs()** function on the line amount to make it positive.

The negative line comes from the fact that when we have a total due that is below the amount paid, we create a new payment line with a negative amount to balance it out. But as we can't send lines with negative amount, we needed to make it positive.

This does not work, as the sum of the lines' amount will then be too much compared to what we are paying for, because instead of substracting it we will be adding it.

To avoid this, we now group the amount in one single tag and send it this way. This ensures that the sent amount is correct and equals the amount due, and does not send a negative line.

opw-6232575

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#121075
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119255

Version:
- 19.0

Steps to reproduce:
- Create a sign template with a readonly sign item linked to an auto field.
- Use a reference record where the linked field value is empty or False.
- Send the document for signing.
- Complete the signing flow.

Issue:
- Readonly sign items linked to auto-filled values could not properly handle
  falsy values. Empty values could trigger the error "Some required items are
  not filled" and completed sign requests displayed the sign item placeholder
  instead of the actual auto-filled value.
- completed document generation could fail when rendering falsy values for
  textarea sign items.

Cause:
- Falsy auto-filled values were ignored during constant item population and
  replaced by the sign item placeholder. Additionally, readonly constant items
  were included in required field validation and completed sign requests
  continued to display placeholders when the stored value was empty.
- document rendering assumed sign item values were always strings for textarea
  sign items but when auto field is empty it value can be False.

Fix:
- Preserve falsy values when populating readonly constant items, exclude
  constant items from signer validation, and hide placeholders for empty
  auto-filled constant items when displaying completed sign requests.
- Normalize falsy values to prevent crashes and allow completed documents
  to be generated correctly.

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#121009

**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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#270416
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265582

Currently when the user receives a perishable product that expires in future, it is considered for reordering regardless if the user has maximum quantity or not.

## Steps to produce:
- Install Inventory
- Go to settings > Enable 'Lots and Serial Numbers' and 'Expiration Dates'
- Create a product 'Vegetable Oil' that is tracked by lots.
- Enable Expiration date in the 'Inventory' Section and set Removal date to 2.
- Create a receipt for 'Vegetable oil' with Demand 10 and mark it as todo
- Details > Set 'Expiration Date' into the future > Set a Lot Number and Save
- Validate the receipt
- Open Product Form for Vegetable oil > Reordering Rules.
- Create a new Reordering rule with Min 5 and Max 10 and save.

## Observed Behavior:
The forecasted quantity is calculated as zero, resulting in a quantity to order of 10, even though no replenishment is actually required. The product already satisfies the maximum quantity defined on the reordering rule, and there is no existing demand, as there are no delivery orders or sales order reservations for the product.

**Why this is an issue:**
When the user navigates from the product form to the On Hand Quantity view to verify the stock situation, the forecasted quantity is shown as 10. This is inconsistent with the value displayed on the reordering rule, creating confusion and making it difficult to understand the actual inventory status.

In addition, if the product is configured with a Buy route, running the `Procurement: Run Scheduler` action repeatedly generates new purchase orders for the perishable product. Even if the generated purchase orders are cancelled or completed, since newly purchased stock will also have an expiration date. As a result, the same incorrect forecast calculation occurs again, causing the scheduler to continuously create new purchase orders and leading to an endless replenishment cycle if they expire within horizon days.

## Root cause:
When an orderpoint is created or updated, `_compute_qty_to_order` [1] is triggered. This method calls `_compute_qty_to_order_computed` [2] which accesses the forecasted quantity, causing its compute method to called.

The forecast computation retrieves context from `_get_product_context` as seen in [3], where the lead horizon date
(route lead time + horizon days configured in settings) is passed as `to_date` at [4]. It then reads the product's `virtual_available` quantity using the orderpoint context at [5].

This ultimately invokes `_compute_quantities`, which delegates the calculation of `virtual_available` to `_compute_quantities_dict`, as shown in [6].

As a result, `max_date` is set to the lead horizon date at [7] (for example, one year in the future). Since the product expires before that date, it is included in `expired_unreserved_quant_res`, causing `virtual_available` to be reduced to zero at [8].

Consequently, the forecasted quantity also becomes zero at [9]. Because the forecasted quantity falls below the orderpoint's minimum quantity, a replenishment is incorrectly triggered.

**Why did this issue not occur in previous versions?** 
This behavior was introduced by [commit](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/8ba2c1e38b636c567511139c5e19b7189430a182 ), which fixed the calculation of fresh(unexpired) quantity displayed in the stock availability widget on sales order lines.
Which expects that `scheduled_date` (typically the committed delivery date or expected delivery date, including leadtime) is passed to `read_qties` at [10] , which stores it in the context using the `to_date` key.

However, the same `to_date` key is also used by the orderpoint horizon-days logic. This overlap causes the expiration-aware quantity computation to use the horizon date instead of the intended `with_expiration` date , leading to incorrect forecast calculations and the unexpected replenishment behavior described above.

[1]-
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/9ae1df190cf5ee6a5775eddb32be7b13f5ed92c9/addons/stock/models/stock_orderpoint.py#L394-L396 
[2]-https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/96b7eed9153eab60288d1624252df6f90ea9505e/addons/stock/models/stock_orderpoint.py#L417-L427
[3]-
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/96b7eed9153eab60288d1624252df6f90ea9505e/addons/stock/models/stock_orderpoint.py#L374-L381
[4]-
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/9ae1df190cf5ee6a5775eddb32be7b13f5ed92c9/addons/stock/models/stock_orderpoint.py#L484-L491 
[5]-
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/96b7eed9153eab60288d1624252df6f90ea9505e/addons/stock/models/stock_orderpoint.py#L386
[6]-
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/9ae1df190cf5ee6a5775eddb32be7b13f5ed92c9/addons/stock/models/product.py#L152-L154 [7]-
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/9ae1df190cf5ee6a5775eddb32be7b13f5ed92c9/addons/stock/models/product.py#L215-L218 [8]-
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/9ae1df190cf5ee6a5775eddb32be7b13f5ed92c9/addons/stock/models/product.py#L260-L262 [9]-
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/9ae1df190cf5ee6a5775eddb32be7b13f5ed92c9/addons/stock/models/stock_orderpoint.py#L391 
[10]-
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/afa2b6b7b47d6420146ceb6dad897405aa92c682/addons/sale_stock/models/sale_order_line.py#L129

## Solution
It does not make sense to trigger replenishment for perishable products solely because they are expected to expire before the  horizon date. Even when the available quantity already satisfies the maximum quantity defined on the reordering rule, the current logic forecasts those products as unavailable in advance of their expiration.

Instead, products should only be excluded from the forecast once they have actually expired, or when they must be removed according to the original expiration-handling logic.

To achieve this, an additional context key can be introduced to distinguish calls originating from the forecast availability widget from SO line. When the computation is performed for the forecast widget, the existing `to_date` context key should continue to be used so that availability is evaluated at the requested future date.

For all other flows, including orderpoint calculations, the system should rely on the `with_expiration` context key instead. This preserves the original behavior, where only already-expired quantities (or quantities that must be removed due to expiration rules) are excluded from availability calculations, preventing incorrect replenishment recommendations for perishable products.


opw-6200644

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#268223

### Issue
Loading a large General Ledger (e.g., during an "Unfold All" action)
and retrieving display names for thousands of journal lines 
(`account.move.line`) causes excessive memory and performance overhead.

Profiling with `memray` showed that one of the main memory hotspots 
was located in `custom_label_builder`.

**Previous behavior:** Accessing `record.display_name` in a loop without
an explicit `fetch()` call triggered lazy computation of the field via
`_compute_display_name()`. When the compute method accessed stored
dependency fields (such as `name`, `ref`, `move_id`), each cache miss
went through `_fetch_field()`, which greedily loaded **all fields sharing
the same prefetch group** on the model, far beyond the dependencies of
`display_name` alone. This caused the ORM cache to be filled with many
unnecessary stored fields for every record in the prefetch set.

---

### Dataset Volume
The performance metrics were captured using a dataset consisting of:
* **455,694** Journal Items (`account.move.line`)
* **19,947** Journal Entries (`account.move`)

---

### Solution
Add a single `fetch(['display_name'])` call on the browsed recordset.
By calling `fetch(['display_name'])` upfront, the ORM goes through 
`_determine_fields_to_fetch(['display_name'])`, which walks
only the declared `field_depends` of `display_name` and fetches **only
those specific stored fields**. nothing more.

---

### Impact & Results

| Metric | Before Optimization | After Optimization | Change / Note |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Peak Memory** | ~856 MB | ~223 MB | ~74% reduction |
| **Execution Time** | 2.48s | 2.13s | About the same time with multiple tries |

OPW-6275158

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#121020

a4efb745e9f4ba24dfa01f1e17e65f1a7cac90a5 merged the web_studio dynamic field and
the mass_mailing dynamic field into a single field selector,
included from the HTML editor.

This introduces a new flow where the user has to first "activate"
the field selector popover ( /field ), which appears as an overlay item;
then open the ModelFieldSelector dropdown to select a field on its
model, which appears as another overlay item.

As both overlay items overlap, and they have the same "z-index"
property, the last sibling in the overlay container appears first.

In mass_mailing, the ModelFieldSelector selector dropdown's overlay
item is introduced as the first child of that container; this results
in the dropdown appearing behind the item through which it was opened.

Fix: Overlay items holding a Dynamic Field Popover have their z-index
property reduced by 1, ensuring they appear behind their
ModelFieldSelectors at all times.

Steps to reproduce:
- Create a new mailing
- Add in any text node
- Type in /field
- Press Enter
- Click the [-] to select a field

task-5477951

**Issue**
Adding a serial-tracked by-product manually on a Manufacturing Order whose BOM does not define it, can lead to inconsistencies when assigning serial numbers in the shopfloor application.

**Steps to reproduce**
- Activate by-product in the settings
- Create a product with an empty BOM (final product)
- Create another product tracked by serial number (by-product)
- Create and confirm a MO for the final product with 1 unit of the by-product
- Go to Miscellaneaous -> operation Type -> shopfloor
- Activate the option "Pre fill lot/serial numbers in shop floor"
- Return to the MO and open the shopfloor view
- Click on the '+' button next to the by-product and assign a serial number
- Try to close the production
-> A user error is raised stating that the by-product requires a serial number.

**Cause**
When the by-product is added manually on the MO, a stock move is created with an initial move line that does not contain any serial number.

Later, when assigning a serial number from the shopfloor view: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/8030b105d3fce1eef9b8965a2bfc37195f71723c/mrp_workorder/models/stock_move.py#L121-L122 a new move line containing the serial number is created: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/8030b105d3fce1eef9b8965a2bfc37195f71723c/mrp_workorder/models/stock_move.py#L116-L119 However, the original empty move line is not removed (the issue): https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/8030b105d3fce1eef9b8965a2bfc37195f71723c/mrp_workorder/models/stock_move.py#L124-L125 Because `self.picking_type_prefill_shop_floor_lots` is True, but `self.byproduct_id` is an empty recordset since: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/8d14665af5acf1bd391d05a5048dc701986e8b15/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L1304-L1311 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/8d14665af5acf1bd391d05a5048dc701986e8b15/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L1279 Indeed, `byproduct_id` is only populated from BOM-defined by-products. As a result, while confirming the production, there is 2 sml and among them, the original one without SN, which triggers the error:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/8d14665af5acf1bd391d05a5048dc701986e8b15/addons/stock/models/stock_move_line.py#L590 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/8d14665af5acf1bd391d05a5048dc701986e8b15/addons/stock/models/stock_move_line.py#L634-L635 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/8d14665af5acf1bd391d05a5048dc701986e8b15/addons/stock/models/stock_move_line.py#L658-L659 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/8d14665af5acf1bd391d05a5048dc701986e8b15/addons/stock/models/stock_move_line.py#L661-L669

opw-6223158

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118792

This commit does not bring native support for EPD on credit notes, only makes custom support a little easier and cleaner.

It is quite easy to support EPD (early payment discounts) on refunds by extending
- `_early_payment_discount_move_types`
- `_is_eligible_for_early_payment_discount`

However, this approach breaks when it reaches `inverse_tax_rep` in `_get_invoice_counterpart_amls_for_early_payment_discount_per_payment_term_line`, which assumes tax repartition lines with `document_type == 'invoice'` and raises when called on `tax_rep` lines of 'refund' type instead.

This commit fixes that by selecting source and target repartition lines according to the `tax_rep`'s document type, which ensures:
- the `.index()` no longer raises a `ValueError`, as `tax_rep` is now looked up in the matching set (`refund_` for refunds, `invoice_` otherwise)
- `inverse_tax_rep` returns the corresponding line in the opposite set, preserving the original invoice->refund mapping while adding the refund->invoice one

Since `inverse_tax_rep` is a closure, downstream modules cannot patch it without copying the whole ~170-line method. Making it symmetric here lets custom EPD-on-refund support work without that duplication.

task-[6265601](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/all-tasks/6265601)

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#271102

This commit ensures product images follow their visual order in the
product image viewer when using the grid layout.

Steps to reproduce:
- Open a product page with multiple images (or add Extra Media to the 
  product)
- Change layout mode to "Grid" and click save
- Click any image to open the product image viewer
- Navigate between images

Images do not follow the visual left-to-right order. This regression was
introduced by [commit], which replaced the row-based grid with a
column-first layout. As a result, `querySelectorAll` returns images in
DOM order, which no longer matches the visual order.

To fix this, images are now reordered based on their visual placement in
the grid so navigation matches the order seen by the user. Images are
traversed in visual left-to-right order while also accounting for
varying image heights and multi-column alignment.

[commit]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/9a3628b9735550bf8ecc2252ea1b7338f68ab966
task-[4364143](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project/974/tasks/4364143)

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#270732
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#254077

**Issue**
Printing an invoice for a returned dropshipped tracked product could display the wrong lot/serial number on the invoice report.

**Steps to reproduce**
- Activate "Display Lots & Serial Numbers on Invoices"
- Create a product tracked by serial/lot and enable the dropship route
- Create two lots: "lot1" and "lot2"
- Create and confirm a SO for quantity 2
- Confirm the PO and validate the dropship for both lots
- Create and post an invoice
- Return "lot2" from the dropship picking
- Create and post a credit note for quantity 1
- Click on print on the invoice 
-> The generated PDF displays "lot1 & lot2" instead of "lot1"

**Cause**
While rendering `account.report_invoice_with_payments`, the report calls `_get_invoiced_lot_values` to determine which lot/serial numbers should be displayed:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/786c373d5ac8afdfb79eb7a7d69c5eb83b919625/addons/sale_stock/models/account_move.py#L31-L32 `invoiced_qties = 2` since the invoice is on a quantity of 2 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/786c373d5ac8afdfb79eb7a7d69c5eb83b919625/addons/sale_stock/models/account_move.py#L44 Three stock move lines are retrieved from the SO:
- the two original dropship deliveries,
- the return move for `lot2`. https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/786c373d5ac8afdfb79eb7a7d69c5eb83b919625/addons/sale_stock/models/account_move.py#L63 However, none of them are considered as `is_stock_return` because the dropship locations use `supplier` instead of `internal`: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/786c373d5ac8afdfb79eb7a7d69c5eb83b919625/addons/sale_stock/models/account_move.py#L72-L76 As a consequence:
- The two original delivery move lines each keep quantity `1`: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/786c373d5ac8afdfb79eb7a7d69c5eb83b919625/addons/sale_stock/models/account_move.py#L69 they never pass through the return handling logic (as they should be): https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/786c373d5ac8afdfb79eb7a7d69c5eb83b919625/addons/sale_stock/models/account_move.py#L77-L80
- for the last one, `is_stock_return = False` while it should not, thus the quantity is 1 instead of 0. Furthermore, it does not pass by this code:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/8759429547e42e9f63b15a7c80475be46ef437e2/addons/sale_stock/models/account_move.py#L79 which would make the quantity for lot2 equalled to 0 (1-1) The quantities are therefore accumulated as:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/786c373d5ac8afdfb79eb7a7d69c5eb83b919625/addons/sale_stock/models/account_move.py#L92

resulting in:
`qties_per_lot = {lot1: 1, lot2: 2}`
instead of:
`qties_per_lot = {lot1: 1, lot2: 0}`

The report selects both lots since it starts with lot1 (qty of 1): https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/786c373d5ac8afdfb79eb7a7d69c5eb83b919625/addons/sale_stock/models/account_move.py#L94-L99

opw-6236855

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#270599

Issue
-----
There are 2 issues with USPS rest:

1. USPS packagings do not have their size UOM displayed. This leads to confusion as users input in inches but the dimensions are treated as feet.

2. USPS returns the same rate regardless of the package type.

Steps to reproduce
-----
- Set USPS up
	- Open the Package Type form > go to its' Dimensions tab

> Issue 1

- Set USPS up (domestic)
	- Select a `Domestic Rating Indicator` (eg LF - Flat Rate Box)
- Create a SO with some product
- Open the delivery widget and add a rate with USPS
	- Discard the changes
- Go to the delivery method and change the rating (eg SP - Single Piece)
- Go back to the SO
- Open the delivery widget and add a rate with USPS

> Issue 2, rate is the same as before

Issue 1
-----
By default, there is no displayed UOM on the form because of

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/38c737c2a4cc29b48235a100cfa9d6152af73826/addons/stock_delivery/models/stock_package_type.py#L20-L33

We can change this behaviour for USPS specifically as done in Envia

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/20cc61e69aa3f6a59de1e962b25ce11fa402bf22/delivery_envia/models/stock_package_type.py#L37-L46

Issue 2
-----
In `usps_rest_rate_shipment`, we request rates for every package of the delivery, which we receive as lists. We then iterate over the list to find the rate matching the `mail_class`. The problem is that this only filters over whether the delivery is domestic or international. We don't filter based on the actual service selected on the carrier (`usps_domestic_rating_indicator` for domestic and `usps_international_rating_indicator` for international).

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/20cc61e69aa3f6a59de1e962b25ce11fa402bf22/delivery_usps_rest/models/delivery_usps.py#L224-L236

-----
Ticket:
opw-6224918

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120789
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120594

A personal outgoing mail server is an `ir.mail_server` that belongs to one user. The
system only lets that user send through it. Mass mailings do not always respect this,
which can cause a few problems:

1. Admins cannot duplicate a personal server. The copy keeps the same owner, and the rule that says one user can own only one server stops the save.
2. In *Email Marketing > Settings*, the "Dedicated Server" picker offers every server, even personal ones. If an admin picks a personal one, all campaigns get stuck. The cron job runs as Odoobot, the personal server rejects it, and the mailing stays in the queue.
3. When no dedicated server is set, the fallback selection can still land on a personal server (for example because its `from_filter` matches the sender). The cron sends through it and gets rejected.


One commit per problem:

1. **mail**: duplicating a personal server now produces a copy with no owner.
2. **mass_mailing**: the picker in the settings hides personal servers. Setting an owner on a server that is already used for mass mailing now raises a clear error that names the campaign blocking the change.
3. **mass_mailing**: personal servers are skipped when the fallback selection runs, so only shared servers are considered.

opw-6086077

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#270607
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#261537

In the current code, for each slot, and for each "available"
resource, we check if the resource is available on the slot,
based on availability values. Then, we check the remaining
capacity of that resource. Also, linked resources information
is added when computing the original resource remaining capacity.
If many linked resources exist, this will be done several times
and is not useful.

This commit makes that loop disappear. We now check all resources
at once in terms of availability, and linked resources that could
be selected (in the appointment resources, in the slot resources
(if any restricted resource)) at the same time. Then, the total
capacity is the sum of the resource remaining capacity and the
ones of available linked resources.

Therefore, _slot_availability_is_resource_available is renamed to
_slot_available_resources, as it now takes more than one resource
and returns all resources among 'resources' that are valid on
the slot, based on the availability_values, slot restrictions and
booking lines.

A noticeable difference is mainly seen when using many resources
(and linked resources). For instance, a restaurant with a lot of
small tables will have their slot availability check much shorter.

BENCHMARK, LOCAL (time only, as number of requests does not change)
Only appointment installed

For a restaurant with
- 10 tables of 2
- 5 tables of 2 linked, 2 times
- 10 tables of 4
- 2 table of 2
- time then auto assign

On loading /appointment/id:
~ 3.1s -> ~ 1.6s
On selecting any number of people (1 to 10):
[2s, 2.5s] -> [0.6s, 0.8s]

Task-4144524

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#121005
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#107711

In POS, the Preparation Time report groups average preparation durations by hour. Those hour buckets were always computed with the timezone of the user who ran the module upgrade (OdooBot / superuser), not the timezone of the user viewing the report. Changing the user, company, or browser timezone had no effect on the graph until the module was upgraded again.

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
* Configure a Preparation Display and create POS orders with measured preparation times.
* Open Point of Sale → Reporting → Preparation Time.
* Note the hour bucket used for the orders.
* Change your user timezone in Preferences and reload the report.

> Observation:
The hour buckets stay the same. Before the fix, they only changed after upgrading `pos_enterprise`, because the timezone was embedded in the SQL view created during `init()` as superuser.

Why the fix:
------------
Replace the static PostgreSQL view with a dynamic `_table_query` so `order_hour` is computed with the current user's timezone on each report read. `init()` now only drops the legacy view instead of recreating it with a frozen timezone.

opw-6220248

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118365

Steps to reproduce:
- Create a US company
- Go to Accounting > Configuration > Settings
- Activate `Avatax` > Set Credentials
- Try to "Sync Parameters"

Traceback:
```py
  File "/home/odoo/src/enterprise/saas-19.2/account_avatax/models/res_company.py", line 113, in avatax_sync_company_params
    'valid_country_ids': [(6, 0, get_countries(vals['validCountries']).ids)],
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/src/enterprise/saas-19.2/account_avatax/models/res_company.py", line 90, in get_countries
    return self.env['res.country'].browse([country_cache[code] for code in code_list])
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.2/odoo/orm/models.py", line 5208, in browse
    assert all(ids) or all(isinstance(x, NewId) or x for x in ids), "Invalid falsy real id"
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
AssertionError: Invalid falsy real id
```

The issue occurs because AvaTax return `*` in the `validCountries` field to indicate that an exemption code is valid for all countries. The synchronization logic stores this value in the country cache as `False` and later passes it to `res.country.browse()`. Since `browse()` does not accept a mix of valid IDs and falsy values, the operation crashes during the synchronization process.

This commit filter out falsy country IDs when resolving country codes to prevent crashes and allow exemption codes to be synchronized successfully.

opw-6298189

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120845

## Description

When loading demo data from **Settings** after installing `l10n_in` without demo data, the `_install_demo` method receives company IDs instead of a `res.company` recordset.

As a result, the following line crashes:

```python
companies.filtered(...)
```

with:

```text
AttributeError: 'int' object has no attribute 'filtered'
```

This PR ensures that the received company IDs are converted into a `res.company` recordset before being processed, allowing demo data to be loaded successfully from the Settings menu.

## Steps to Reproduce

1. Install `l10n_in` **without demo data**.
2. Navigate to **Settings**.
3. Click **Load Demo Data**.

## Current Behavior

Demo data installation fails with:

```text
AttributeError: 'int' object has no attribute 'filtered'
```

## Expected Behavior

Demo data should be installed successfully without raising any exception.

## Solution

Convert the received company IDs into a `res.company` recordset when the argument passed to `_install_demo` is not already a recordset.

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#270523

Steps to reproduce:
===================
1. Edit a job page.
2. Delete every `s_rating` block.
3. Save.

=> Validation Error: Document is empty.

Cause:
======
Deleting the last snippet inside an editable HTML field (e.g. the last `s_rating` block in the `website_rating` field of a job page) leaves the field's editable container with only whitespace text nodes. On save, it writes that whitespace to the record and then calls `_copy_custom_snippet_translations`, which does
`html.fromstring(lang_value)` on the whitespace and raises `lxml.etree.ParserError: Document is empty`, re-raised as `ValidationError`. The user sees a "Validation Error" dialog and can't finish saving.

The previous fix for the analogous "Document is empty" symptom on product description editing (commit [1])
added a `cleanupEmptyStructures` `on_removed_handlers` that strips whitespace from `.oe_empty` containers after element removal. That selector covers `oe_structure.oe_empty` containers but not editable HTML field savables (`[data-oe-type="html"]`), which don't carry an `oe_empty` class when they originally had content. As a result, fields like `hr.job.website_rating` still hit the failing parse path.

Solution:
=========
Extend the cleanup selector to also include `[data-oe-type="html"]` so HTML-field editables are normalized to genuinely empty after the last inner snippet is removed.

[1]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/53d5cc7eed635f64038bf0315f6863011879c529

opw-6244892

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#270466
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#267397

*: hr_holidays,test_discuss_full

**Steps to reproduce,**
Create an employee linked to a user
Archive the employee and remove the link to the user
Create another employee for the same user
Go to Discuss > 'General' channel
Open the member list and click on the user's avatar

**Before this commit,**
Clicking on the avatar opened a popover showing outdated information from the
archived employee record instead of the new one.

**Cause,**
By default, the server sends employee data ordered by name. Since both records
have the same name, the order is non-deterministic. The client then attempts to
match the employee's company to the current user's company, falling back to the
first record in the list if no match is found.

**Fix,**
Filter out archived records first (treating them as non-existent). Then, sort
the remaining employee records to prioritize those that match the current user's
active company. In case records share the same company, prioritize employees
with a related user. Fall back to descending order of creation for identical
results.

**After this commit,**
Clicking on the avatar shows the correct employee details in the popover.

task-6175765

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#270169
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#252170