The Wage Types action record salary rules belonging to the CHMONTHLYELM payroll structure.

During the payroll refactoring, salary rules were changed to support multiple payroll structures. in the 19.4  version here c2f18f3

Where struct_id M20 field is changes to [M2m](https://github.com/odoo/upgrade/pull/10294/changes#diff-541246af074f8ac598b0a274ef9861f5fe974e6ded22e906c3d35adecb284e8cR51) struct_ids 

Opening Payroll > Configuration > Company > Wage Types will cause the issue as the action has not updated which Failes the [ci/upgrade_enterprise](https://runbot.odoo.com/runbot/batch/2598248/build/115031148)

Steps to reproduce.
- Create a database on saas-19.3.
- Install l10n_ch_hr_payroll.
- Upgrade the database to master.
- Open Payroll > Configuration > Company > Wage Types.
- Error raise error(message % (*args, self.field_expr, self.operator, self.value)) ValueError: Invalid field hr.salary.rule.struct_id in condition
 ('struct_id.code', '=', 'CHMONTHLYELM')

The issue will directly reproduce in the runbot maste too installed the l10n_ch_hr_payroll module and access the wage type.
```
Adding menu ('l10n_ch_hr_payroll.menu_l10n_ch_wage_types', 1598, 'Payroll > Configuration > Company > Wage Types', 2337) to the failing menus
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "[/data/build/odoo/odoo/orm/domains.py](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/2fb276668c824d6fe759a7c51f9ef10677532508/odoo/orm/domains.py#L964)", line 964, in __get_field
    field = model._fields[field_name]
            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^^^^^^
KeyError: 'struct_id'

During handling of the above exception, another exception occurred:

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "[/data/build/upgrade/migrations/base/tests/test_mock_crawl.py](https://github.com/odoo/upgrade/blob/07bec6a1031093cf001642f8df21e40421cce3be/migrations/base/tests/test_mock_crawl.py#L346)", line 346, in crawl_menu
    self.mock_action(action_vals)
  File "[/data/build/upgrade/migrations/base/tests/test_mock_crawl.py](https://github.com/odoo/upgrade/blob/07bec6a1031093cf001642f8df21e40421cce3be/migrations/base/tests/test_mock_crawl.py#L377)", line 377, in mock_action
    return self.mock_act_window(action)
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "[/data/build/upgrade/migrations/base/tests/test_mock_crawl.py](https://github.com/odoo/upgrade/blob/07bec6a1031093cf001642f8df21e40421cce3be/migrations/base/tests/test_mock_crawl.py#L537)", line 537, in mock_act_window
    mock_method(model, view, fields_list, domain, group_by)
  File "[/data/build/upgrade/migrations/base/tests/test_mock_crawl.py](https://github.com/odoo/upgrade/blob/07bec6a1031093cf001642f8df21e40421cce3be/migrations/base/tests/test_mock_crawl.py#L675)", line 675, in mock_view_list
    return self.mock_view_tree(model, view, fields_list, domain, group_by)
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "[/data/build/upgrade/migrations/base/tests/test_mock_crawl.py](https://github.com/odoo/upgrade/blob/07bec6a1031093cf001642f8df21e40421cce3be/migrations/base/tests/test_mock_crawl.py#L688)", line 688, in mock_view_tree
    self.mock_web_search_read(model, view, [domain], fields_list)
  File "[/data/build/upgrade/migrations/base/tests/test_mock_crawl.py](https://github.com/odoo/upgrade/blob/07bec6a1031093cf001642f8df21e40421cce3be/migrations/base/tests/test_mock_crawl.py#L722)", line 722, in mock_web_search_read
    data = model.search_read(domain=domain, fields=fields_list, limit=80, order=filter_order(model))
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "[/data/build/odoo/odoo/orm/models.py](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/2fb276668c824d6fe759a7c51f9ef10677532508/odoo/orm/models.py#L5187)", line 5187, in search_read
    records = self.search_fetch(domain or [], fields, offset=offset, limit=limit, order=order)
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "[/data/build/odoo/odoo/orm/models.py](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/2fb276668c824d6fe759a7c51f9ef10677532508/odoo/orm/models.py#L1462)", line 1462, in search_fetch
    query = self._search(domain, offset=offset, limit=limit, order=order or self._order)
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "[/data/build/odoo/odoo/orm/models.py](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/2fb276668c824d6fe759a7c51f9ef10677532508/odoo/orm/models.py#L4773)", line 4773, in _search
    domain = domain.optimize_full(self)
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "[/data/build/odoo/odoo/orm/domains.py](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/2fb276668c824d6fe759a7c51f9ef10677532508/odoo/orm/domains.py#L472)", line 472, in optimize_full
    return self._optimize(model, OptimizationLevel.FULL)
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "[/data/build/odoo/odoo/orm/domains.py](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/2fb276668c824d6fe759a7c51f9ef10677532508/odoo/orm/domains.py#L486)", line 486, in _optimize
    previous, domain = domain, domain._optimize_step(model, next_level)
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "[/data/build/odoo/odoo/orm/domains.py](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/2fb276668c824d6fe759a7c51f9ef10677532508/odoo/orm/domains.py#L670)", line 670, in _optimize_step
    children = self._flatten(child._optimize(model, level) for child in self.children)
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "[/data/build/odoo/odoo/orm/domains.py](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/2fb276668c824d6fe759a7c51f9ef10677532508/odoo/orm/domains.py#L628)", line 628, in _flatten
    for child in children:
  File "[/data/build/odoo/odoo/orm/domains.py](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/2fb276668c824d6fe759a7c51f9ef10677532508/odoo/orm/domains.py#L670)", line 670, in <genexpr>
    children = self._flatten(child._optimize(model, level) for child in self.children)
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "[/data/build/odoo/odoo/orm/domains.py](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/2fb276668c824d6fe759a7c51f9ef10677532508/odoo/orm/domains.py#L486)", line 486, in _optimize
    previous, domain = domain, domain._optimize_step(model, next_level)
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "[/data/build/odoo/odoo/orm/domains.py](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/2fb276668c824d6fe759a7c51f9ef10677532508/odoo/orm/domains.py#L988)", line 988, in _optimize_step
    field, property_name = self.__get_field(model)
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "[/data/build/odoo/odoo/orm/domains.py](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/2fb276668c824d6fe759a7c51f9ef10677532508/odoo/orm/domains.py#L966)", line 966, in __get_field
    self._raise("Invalid field %s.%s", model._name, field_name)
  File "[/data/build/odoo/odoo/orm/domains.py](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/2fb276668c824d6fe759a7c51f9ef10677532508/odoo/orm/domains.py#L951)", line 951, in _raise
    raise error(message % (*args, self.field_expr, self.operator, self.value))
ValueError: Invalid field hr.salary.rule.struct_id in condition ('struct_id.code', '=', 'CHMONTHLYELM')
2026-06-22 12:02:29	[ERROR](https://github.com/odoo/upgrade-util/blob/f3431df77099e3df9299b9d6fb1ea001796c176c/src/testing.py#L483)	
FAIL: TestCrawler.test_check
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "[/data/build/upgrade-util/src/testing.py](https://github.com/odoo/upgrade-util/blob/f3431df77099e3df9299b9d6fb1ea001796c176c/src/testing.py#L483)", line 483, in test_check
    self.check(value)
  File "[/data/build/upgrade/migrations/base/tests/test_mock_crawl.py](https://github.com/odoo/upgrade/blob/07bec6a1031093cf001642f8df21e40421cce3be/migrations/base/tests/test_mock_crawl.py#L230)", line 230, in check
    self.assertFalse(diff, msg)
AssertionError: [('l10n_ch_hr_payroll.menu_l10n_ch_wage_types', 1598, 'Payroll > Configuration > Company > Wage Types', 2337)] is not false : At least one menu or view working before upgrade is not working after upgrade.
```
Soln:- Update the action with the correct field.

ref :- https://runbot.odoo.com/runbot/batch/2598248/build/115031148

**Problem:**
On a rental order, the sales order / quotation PDF no longer shows the pickup and return dates. The line description only displays the rental duration (e.g. "2 Days"), so the actual dates are missing from the printout.

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Create a rental order with a rentable product and pickup/return dates
2. Print the order (Print > Quotation / Order)
3. Observe the PDF shows only the duration, with no pickup/return dates

**Current behavior:**
Neither the rental dates (removed from the description) nor any pickup/return field appear on the PDF.

**Expected behavior:**
The pickup and return dates are shown on the rental order PDF.

**Cause of the issue:**
The rental line description was intentionally reduced to only the duration (`_get_rental_duration_description`), the actual dates being meant to appear as dedicated Pickup/Return fields. This was added to the customer portal (`sale_rental_portal_details` inherits `sale.sale_order_portal_content`) but the equivalent was never added to the `sale.report_saleorder_document` PDF report, so the dates disappeared from the printout.

**Fix:**
Inherit the sale order report to render the order-level pickup and return dates for rental orders, mirroring the existing portal presentation so the PDF and the portal stay consistent.

opw-6268640

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119736

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#121162
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#116906

**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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#121233
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120818

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120991

Leaving a session open and idle (page open, no activity at all) eventually pops an error dialog:

    UncaughtPromiseError > RequestPendingError
    REGISTER request already in progress, waiting for final response
        at Registerer.register (sip.js)
        at Registerer.register (registerer.js)
        at UserAgent.attemptReconnection (user_agent_service.js)

When the WebSocket transport drops while a REGISTER is in flight (which happens on an idle tab: SIP.js sends a periodic re-REGISTER before the registration expires, and the socket may be closed by an idle timeout or by the machine going to sleep in the meantime), the final response never comes back. SIP.js only clears its internal `waiting` flag from the REGISTER response callbacks (onAccept/onReject/onRedirect); it is never reset on transport loss or request timeout. The Registerer is then stuck `waiting` forever, and every subsequent register() rejects with a RequestPendingError.

On top of that, our wrapper's register() did not return the SIP.js promise, and attemptReconnection() called it without awaiting, so the rejection escaped the surrounding try/catch and surfaced as an unhandled promise rejection. Worse, the WebSocket error was resolved right after, so the user appeared reconnected while VoIP registration was actually dead until the page was reloaded.

This commit makes register() recreate the underlying SIP.js Registerer when it is stuck `waiting` (a clean instance starts with waiting=false), and return the promise so callers can await it. attemptReconnection() now awaits it, so any rejection goes through the existing retry/back-off logic instead of bubbling up as an uncaught error.

The recreation is intentionally conditional: disposing a healthy registerer would send an unregister (REGISTER expires=0) racing with the fresh register (expires=600) and could leave us unregistered, so we only recreate when a request is actually stuck.

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120487
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119701

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

Steps to replicate:
- Install `documents_project` and open any project's settings using kebab menu (3 dots).
- Click new > name `Test` > open settings page and unselect `Documents` > Save.
- Click new > name `Test1` > Save.
- From the list view select `Test` and `Test1` and edit their name.

Error:
```
ValueError: Expected singleton: project.project(9, 10)
```

Cause:
- During `multi-edit`, self contains multiple project records.
- When only one of the selected projects has a documents folder (i.e. `use_documents` enabled), `self.documents_folder_id` contains that single folder, making `len(self.documents_folder_id.project_ids) == 1` to be True [1].
- The condition then proceeds to access `self.name` on the `multi-recordset`, raising singleton.

Solution:
- Avoided accessing `self.name` on a `multi-recordset` during multi-edit.
- Filtered projects individually and updated the document folders using the name in vals.

[1]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/3c2985ca6011700c271ed14e40e08c89be822753/documents_project/models/project_project.py#L101

sentry-7452096418

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120654
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119060

**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#120493
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118792

Steps to reproduce:
1. Make sure you have an employee with a contract
2. Create 2 payslips for this employee
3. Change any field of the employee (ex: job position)
4. Go to one of the payslips created before
5. Click on the "Manage Payslips" link appearing because of the change of data

Problem:
When the data of an employee has been modified and past payslip are affected, the popup currently states 0 payslip has been affected. When clicking the "Correct" button, the correct amount briefly shows before we are sent to the payslip page where only one payslip gets corrected.

Source of the problem:
- The `employee_id` field was missing from the wizard form view. Since it was not referenced anywhere in the view, the web client did not include it in the initial payload / default_get calls. As a result, the wizard was initialized without `employee_id`, causing the payslip computation to use an empty employee and return a count of 0.
- The window action did not explicitly call the intended wizard form view. Odoo therefore selected an unintended inherited view (salary increase wizard) due to view resolution rules (inheritance and priority ordering). This inherited view specifically replaces the description and the correction choice with nothing, which explains why it didn't show before.

Fix:
- Add an invisible `employee_id` field in the form view to ensure it is included in the initial form payload and properly initialized from context defaults.
- Explicitly specify the correct view in the `views` parameter of the window action to prevent fallback to an inherited or unintended view.
- Add an explicit priority on the salary increase wizard view to avoid ambiguous view selection in the future.

Task-6304311

# Introduction note
This PR fixes two bugs introduced by the same commit :
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/106d70a1ef0ddbd61a74b7cac82dfce1e316beaa

The original commit fixed multiple issues regarding the display of recurring plans when
the One-time purchase option was enabled, but it also introduced new ones.

Theses new issues are due to multiple new checks on `allow_one_time_sale`, but this
variable only indicates that the One-time purchase option is available to the user, not that
it is actually selected. So the fixes of the original commit works when first loading the page,
but fails when the content of the page is updated.

# Shared steps
- Activate Subscriptions & eCommerce modules
- Create a subscription product, enable 'Accept One-Time' and publish it on the website

# Bug 1
 
## How to reproduce
- Add atleast two recurring plans to the product
- Go to the product page on the website
- Select one of the recurring plans
- Increase the quantity of the product

## The problem
The recurring plan selection is removed

## Cause
The condition `!combination_info.allow_one_time_sale` was added on the `t-att-checked` of the recurring plan selection display. This correctly fixed the issue when first loading the page, but when the user changes the price or the variant, the recurring plan are
recomputed and rerendered :

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/0b408acbadb2cfcbc844521f3244a06b7ae7be22/website_sale_subscription/static/src/interactions/product_page.js#L37-L40

When that is the case, that condition blocks the proper display of the selected recurring plan.

## Proposed Solution
When loading the recurring plan selection, what defines wich plan is selected is the
`subscription_default_pricing_plan_id` variable, which is based on the
`plan_id` value given in the request to the server :
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/0b408acbadb2cfcbc844521f3244a06b7ae7be22/website_sale_subscription/models/product_template.py#L222

We make it so if no `plan_id` is sent to the server and `allow_one_time_sale` is
enabled, then the server does not give back any `subscription_default_pricing_plan_id`

opw-6131532

# Bug 2

## How to reproduce
- Add an attribute with values A & B for the product
- Define atleast two recurring plans for the variant with attribute B
- Publish the product
- Go to the product page
- Select the variant with attribute B

## The problem
The recurring plan is not displayed. If the order of the attribute is reversed, then it works as expected.

## Cause
The pricings are correcly sent to the front-end but they are not added to selection because
of the check on  `allow_one_time_sale` :
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/0b408acbadb2cfcbc844521f3244a06b7ae7be22/website_sale_subscription/static/src/interactions/product_page.js#L42-L50

opw-6132160

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120873
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#115446

When creating a payslip for an employee in the Belgian localization with
an hourly wage and an attendance-based work entry source contract, a
traceback occurs if there is an attendance with overtime.

This happens because the overridden `_preprocess_work_hours_data_split_half`
method in `l10n_be_hr_payroll_attendance` attempts to unpack `work_entries`
assuming it is a list of triplets, but it is passed as a `defaultdict`
with composite keys instead. This data structure mismatch results in a
`ValueError: not enough values to unpack (expected 3, got 2)`.

Even if updated to handle the `defaultdict` structure, `_preprocess_work_hours_data_split_half` would improperly delete the overtime line hours without adding them back elsewhere (the code responsible for adding them back seems to have been removed). Since this function serves no purpose anymore, we omit the call to it. However, because `saas-19.2` is a stable version
Task Id: 6253707

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119177
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118676

### Steps to reproduce:

- Enable rental transfer
- Create a rentable product R
- Create and confirm a rental order for 1 unit of R
- Create a kit bom for R: 1 x COMP
- Validate the delivery of your unit of R
#### > Missing Error: Record does not exist or has been deleted.

### Cause of the issue:

Confirming your rental order will generate a confirm moves of R. However, since at this point the product was not a kit, these will not be exploded. Now, the issue is that at validation The move will be exploded and deleted in the super call:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/7cceddaf086d849b8e2121e1023ef3479397534f/sale_mrp_renting/models/stock_move.py#L10-L13 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0f2f222a431627a672daf10c86ec2578a27f97bb/addons/mrp/models/stock_move.py#L550-L555 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0f2f222a431627a672daf10c86ec2578a27f97bb/addons/mrp/models/stock_move.py#L591-L593 However, since the overrides of the sale_{mrp,stock}_renting modules call self rather than the result of the super call, they still expect to work with the original move rather than its exploded result: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/7cceddaf086d849b8e2121e1023ef3479397534f/sale_mrp_renting/models/stock_move.py#L10-L13 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/7cceddaf086d849b8e2121e1023ef3479397534f/sale_stock_renting/models/stock_move.py#L61-L65

opw-6191841

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120866
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120051

Version
- saas-19.3

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Create a custom Sign field (e.g. "Passport No") with "Update Field" enabled, linked to Employee (For Applicant, same any custom field).
2. Employee flow: Employee app -> open an employee -> gear icon -> Signature Request -> send.
   Applicant flow: Recruitment app -> Applicants list view -> select an applicant -> Actions -> Signature Request -> send.
3. Complete the signature.
4. Check the linked record's "Passport No" field -> field is not updated.

Issue:
The field linked to the employee/applicant record is not updated after signing.

Cause:
Both the `hr.contract.sign.document.wizard` and `hr.recruitment.sign.document.wizard` create the `sign.request` in `validate_signature()` without setting `reference_doc`. `_get_auto_field_target_record()` relies on `reference_doc` to resolve the record to sync auto fields against. With `reference_doc` empty, it returns `None`, so `sign.request._sync_auto_field_value()` skips the item before it ever reaches the write step.

Solution:
Set `reference_doc` to the corresponding `hr.employee`/`hr.applicant` record when building the `sign.request` values in `validate_signature()`, so auto fields linked to those models can resolve their target record and sync back normally after signing.

taskid-6308532

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#121152

Steps to reproduce:
----------------------------------------
- Have the company calendar work from 9 to 17 on weekdays
- In project gantt view, create tasks with dependencies like this:
```
- [Task 1] (June 08, 09:00 AM - 10:00 AM) ──┐
                                            ├─> [Task 3] (June 11, 09:00 AM - 10:00 AM)
- [Task 2] (June 10, 09:00 AM - 10:00 AM) ──┘
```
- Make sure the "Auto-Reschedule (Keep Buffer)" is selected
- Then reschedule task 1 to `(June 09, 09:00 AM - 10:00 AM)`
- Task 3 is rescheduled to `(June 15, 09:00 AM - 10:00 AM)`

**Expected behavior:**
To respect the buffers, task 3 should have been rescheduled to `(June 12, 09:00 AM - 10:00 AM)`:
- The buffer from task 1 is  23 working hours after `June 09, 10:00 AM` is `June 12, 09:00 AM`
- The buffer from task 2 doesn't affect the rescheduling.

Cause:
----------------------------------------
From `_web_gantt_update_next_candidates_dates()` we call `_get_new_dates()` with `seconds_between_tasks` being the duration of working hours between the end of task 1 and the start of task 3. We also call it with `first_possible_start_date_per_candidate` being the end of task 3 also depends on task 2.

Then `_get_new_dates()` counts the working hours from `first_possible_start_date_per_candidate` until it reaches `seconds_between_tasks`. Which means the buffer between task 1 and task 3 is actually applied between task 2 and task 3.

Solution:
----------------------------------------
The value contained in `first_possible_start_date_per_candidate` is irrelevant, the correct value to give to `_get_new_dates()` would be `compute_end_date` as we want to keep the buffer to be calculated from this datetime.
So we create a fake dictionary with only the task and `compute_end_date` and give it to `_get_new_dates()`.

The same logic applies when moving tasks backwards.

opw-5973597

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119161

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#121212
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#107711