**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

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

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#271115
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#261537

## Steps to reproduce

- Create an attribute A, of type always, with 2 values, one should have an extra price
- Create an attribute B, of type never, with 2 values
- Create a product that has both those attributes
- Create a combo with that product with both values for A
- Go to the PoS and order that combo with the value that has an extra price for A
- The extra price is added

## Why the fix:

For variants of type always, a product is created, meaning we can chose which products of this variants to have in our combo.

As we can chose this, it means that we can and should chose the extra price on the combo creation page, not on the attribute page.

It does not make sense to take the attribute extra price into account, as we do not take the unit price of combo items into account, so this extra price should be set on the combo page and we should ignore the attribute's extra price if the type is "always".

The variants are then considered as different products, as they should in this case.

If the type of the attribute is never, we can't chose which one gets an extra price on the combo page, so we should still take the attribute's extra price in this situation, as we have no other way to set it.

We need to have both an always and a never attribute in order to reproduce this bug because if we only have "always" values, the configuration of the combo item is bypassed and is undefined, so **attribute_value_ids** will be undefined in this code and we won't get any value for the extra price in this code: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/c09e8b2fc24ee75495fc947924e29cf5c601506f/addons/point_of_sale/static/src/app/models/utils/compute_combo_items.js#L44-L49 

We now ignore the attribute's extra price if it's type is always, otherwise, it the behavior stays the same.

opw-6262431

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#270894
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#268567

# 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

Steps to reproduce the bug:
- Go to contact:
    - azure interior: - Group RFQ: On Order
- Create two storable products P1 and P2, both with the Buy route and Azure interior as vendor
- Confirm a sale order with P1 (MTO+Buy):
    - a purchase order PO1 is created, linked to the sale order via reference_ids
- Create a reordering rule for P2 and trigger it

Problem:
The reordering rule procurement for P2 was merged into PO1 (the sale order's purchase order) instead of creating a new separate PO.

In _make_po_get_domain (purchase_stock/models/stock_rule.py), when group_rfq == 'default' (On Order), the domain only adds a reference_ids filter when the procurement carries reference_ids. When the procurement comes from a reordering rule (no sale order, no reference_ids), no filter was added, so the search matched any draft PO from that vendor, including PO1, which has reference_ids pointing to the sale order.

Solution:
When group_rfq == 'default' and the procurement has no reference_ids, add ('reference_ids', '=', False) to the domain so the search only matches POs that are also not linked to any sale order.

opw-6167835

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#270735

**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#270768
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265582