When transferring an order to a table that already has an open order, identical products are merged into a single line. If both orders were already sent to the kitchen printer, the merged line was incorrectly marked as new and had to be sent again.

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
* Open table 1, add product A (2 units) and product B, send to kitchen
* Open table 2, add product A (3 units) and product C, send to kitchen
* On table 2, transfer/merge the order to table 1

> Observation:
product A shows 2 units as new and must be sent to the kitchen printer again, although all quantities were already sent.

Why the fix:
------------
When merging preparation history for identical lines, handlePreparationHistory overwrote the destination sent quantity with the source one instead of summing both. The kitchen diff then treated the missing quantity as new changes.

A unit test will be added in 18.3.

opw-6246470

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#271828
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#267915

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

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

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

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

Current behavior before PR:

### Steps to reproduce

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

Desired behavior after PR is merged:

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

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

### Notes

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


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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#272198
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#268505

Problem
----------------------
When an employee takes a long sick leave (more than 30 days), the basic wage on the payslip is set to 0, leading to the holiday attest annual taxable income to be calculated as 0 * 12, which is incorrect.

Reason
-------------------
The calculation for the holiday attest uses the last payslip for the employee, and if the employee had leave type LEAVE214, the last payslip has the basic wage set to zero, so the taxable wage that is used in the annual taxable wage calculation is wrong. The monthly wage should be used as the basic wage in the payslip to get the correct computation.

Solution
-------------------
The GROSS (taxable income) line that is used is computed as (basic wage - ONSS total + BIK), but the basic wage was 0. This commit checks whether the basic wage is 0 and if the time off type was longterm sick leave, and simulates a payslip using the monthly wage from the contract as basic wage to get the accurate computation for the taxable income.

task-6237717

Steps to reproduce
------------------
Serial-tracked finished product:
1. Create a serial-tracked finished product and an un-tracked component.
2. Create a Manufacturing Order with quantity 2 and confirm it.
3. Open the Barcode app, scan the MO, then scan a first serial number SN_X1.
4. Scan a second serial number SN_X2.
5. Validate.

Lot-tracked finished product:
1. Create a lot-tracked finished product with a one-component BoM and an existing lot LOT_A.
2. Create a Manufacturing Order and confirm it.
3. Open the Barcode app, scan the MO, then scan the existing lot LOT_A.
4. Scan a different, not-yet-existing lot LOT_B.
5. Validate.

Issue
-----
Only the last scanned serial is registered on the MO, and validation then fails because the count of producing serials does not match qty_producing for a serial-tracked finished product.

updateLine overwrote lot_producing_ids with [args.lot_id] on every scan, so the first serial was dropped when the second one was scanned, and the same branch never staged a freshly typed
lot_name, so a brand-new serial typed on a serial-tracked MO was lost before reaching the backend.

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/4a2f1da5466740b7758d1962e5241620845d616b/stock_barcode_mrp/static/src/models/barcode_mrp_model.js#L407

Two behaviours of the shared barcode dispatcher make a single accumulating branch insufficient.

The final-product line must keep exposing a producing lot, otherwise the base hasUnassignedQty check counts a scanned serial as zero once a quantity is already set, leaving qty_producing stuck below the demand.

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/f622064871bf55b93890606d16407c50cf4419a6/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L1446

But exposing a producing lot makes the dispatcher treat the next serial as a conflicting tracking number, since the base _canOverrideTrackingNumber considers a different lot name non-overridable.

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/f622064871bf55b93890606d16407c50cf4419a6/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L796-L798

So the scan is diverted to a new line through the override gate instead of updating the header line.

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/f622064871bf55b93890606d16407c50cf4419a6/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L1585

For a lot-tracked finished product the producing lot can be corrected by scanning a different value, but the lot branch only stored a freshly typed value in lot_name and overwrote lot_producing_ids with the single existing lot.

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/4a2f1da5466740b7758d1962e5241620845d616b/stock_barcode_mrp/static/src/models/barcode_mrp_model.js#L404-L407

The header reads its lot from lot_producing_ids whenever that relation is set and only falls back to lot_name when it is empty.

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/4a2f1da5466740b7758d1962e5241620845d616b/stock_barcode_mrp/static/src/components/header.js#L45-L58

The save path only promotes lot_name to a producing lot when lot_producing_ids is empty, so scanning an existing lot then a new one neither displayed nor recorded the new lot and the finished product was produced under the old lot.

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/4a2f1da5466740b7758d1962e5241620845d616b/stock_barcode_mrp/static/src/models/barcode_mrp_model.js#L628

Solution
--------
Accumulate scanned serials by appending to lot_producing_ids instead of replacing it, and stage a freshly typed lot_name as a new producing lot when the finished product is tracked by serial, so every serial reaches the backend.

Keep the final-product line exposing the last producing lot so each scanned serial is still counted as one unit instead of resetting the quantity to zero once several serials are registered.

Override _canOverrideTrackingNumber for the final-product line so a serial scan updates the header line rather than being diverted to a new line, which is the only valid path for the finished product since it is a single header line backed by the lot_producing_ids relation.

Persist the producing serials with explicit x2many commands, separating already-existing lots from freshly typed ones, so both are written on the MO.

Reject a serial that is already registered on the MO so the same number cannot be produced twice in one session.

For a lot-tracked finished product, build a producing lot from the scanned value, using the existing lot or a freshly typed lot name, and store it in lot_producing_ids so the new lot is both displayed and persisted through the same x2many commands as the serial case.

Leave the produced quantity unchanged when the scanned lot differs from the one already registered, since replacing the lot is a correction and not an extra unit, and keep incrementing it when the same lot is scanned again.

opw-6189620

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#116890

Overview
------

When having a favorite mailing (template) for target model X, and another one for target model Y, and try to create a new mailing for target model X, the theme selector will first show the template X with the correct title and preview, however when switching to model Y, the theme selector will show the title of the tempalte Y but the preview is always the one of template X.

How to reproduce
------

1. Create a new mailing for a target model X (e.g. `mailing.contact`)
2. Set a content for that mailing (you can choose from the existing themes)
3. Set that mailing as a favorite (using the favorite star button)
4. Create a new mailing for another target model Y.
5. Redo steps 2. and 3.
6. Create a new mailing, and set the target model to X (You should see the mailing X in the theme selector with the correct title and preview)
7. Change the target model to Y.

Expected Behavior
------

Both the title and the preview of the mailing X in the theme selector should change into the title and the preivew of mailing Y.

Current Behavior
------

The title of the template is changed into the one of Y however the preview remains the one of mailing X.

Cause of The Issue
------

After the first mount of the `FavoritePreivew` component, when the template changes in the props, the body content of the preivew is not updated with the new value.

Task-6332946



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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#272065

*: website, website_mass_mailing

__Problem__
In some cases, popup snippets can be dropped inside another popup.
This shouldn't be possible. Moreover, it produces the following error:
`TypeError: Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'after')`.

This can happen in multiple scenarios:
- After saving a custom snippet, the snippets are reloaded but
  `disableUndroppableSnippets` is not called again, although the
  snippets should be filtered again.
- `NewsletterPopupPlugin` registers `.o_newsletter_popup` in the
  `so_snippet_addition_selector` resource, bypassing the more
  restrictive `dropzone_selector` of `PopupOptionPlugin`.
- Popups are not disabled when the cookie bar is open because we don't
  take `excludeAncestor` into account in `DisableSnippetsPlugin`.

__Fix__
- Trigger an event whenever the snippets are loaded and call
  `disableUndroppableSnippets` when it is.
- Remove the redundant `NewsletterPopupPlugin`.
- Filter `dropAreaEls` with `excludeAncestor` in `DisableSnippetsPlugin`.

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#271635
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#269864

Issue:
When work entries are generated from Attendances, a worked-time time off created by the Indian sandwich rule can overlap a public holiday and generate duplicate work entries for the same day.

Steps to reproduce:
- Create an employee with Work Entry Source set to Attendances
- Use a flexible working schedule on the employee
- Configure a public holiday on a scheduled day with work entry type (Paid time off)
- Create a time off type with Count as set to Worked Time
- Generate time off for the period so the public holiday entry exists (maybe a day before and a the public holiday and the day after)
- Open Payroll > Work Entries (Observe the date of the public holiday will have more than 8h entry)

Cause:
In `_get_version_work_entries_values()`, calendar leaves are split by `hr_holidays` `time_type` into:
- leaves: absences and public holidays
- worked_leaves: worked-time time off For attendance-based contracts, both sets were turned into work entries without removing overlap between a public holiday and a worked-time leave on the same period. https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/3a088e23d3e563c39cdcb252edc8c7cc74981de4/addons/hr_work_entry/models/hr_version.py#L222-L226

For non-flexible calendar:
Public holidays and worked-time leaves are both clipped to the static working schedule (e.g. 8h per working day). overlap was kept in both result sets. https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/3a088e23d3e563c39cdcb252edc8c7cc74981de4/addons/hr_work_entry/models/hr_version.py#L260

For flexible calendar:
The one-day intervals are kept as the actual interval (often 00:00-23:59 for a public holiday). The worked-time on that day is schedule-shaped (e.g. 8h). Subtracting intervals on a full-day public holiday left a 16h fragment instead of removing the public holiday entry. https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/3a088e23d3e563c39cdcb252edc8c7cc74981de4/addons/hr_work_entry/models/hr_version.py#L242-L249

Solution:
We need to make regular leaves take priority over worked-time leaves, compute the real regular leave intervals first, then remove those intervals from the worked-time leave intervals before work entries are created:
- for fully flexible employees, subtract regular leaves from worked leaves;
- for flexible calendars, keep one-day regular leaves as is and subtract them from worked-time leaves
- for non-flexible attendance-based calendars, clip regular leaves on the static schedule, then subtract them from worked-time leaves clipped on the same schedule.
  
This means that when a sandwich worked-time leave overlaps a public holiday, the public holiday consumes that period first. The overlapping part is then removed from `real_worked_leaves`, so no second worked-time entry is generated for the same public holiday period.

opw-6237163

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#269615
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#268527

Issue:
When work entries are generated from Attendances, a worked-time time off created by the Indian sandwich rule can overlap a public holiday and generate duplicate work entries for the same day.

Steps to reproduce:
- Create an employee with Work Entry Source set to Attendances
- Use a flexible working schedule on the employee
- Configure a public holiday on a scheduled day with work entry type (Paid time off)
- Create a time off type with Count as set to Worked Time
- Generate time off for the period so the public holiday entry exists (maybe a day before and a the public holiday and the day after)
- Open Payroll > Work Entries (Observe the date of the public holiday will have more than 8h entry)

Cause:
In `_get_version_work_entries_values()`, calendar leaves are split by `hr_holidays` `time_type` into:
- leaves: absences and public holidays
- worked_leaves: worked-time time off For attendance-based contracts, both sets were turned into work entries without removing overlap between a public holiday and a worked-time leave on the same period. https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/3a088e23d3e563c39cdcb252edc8c7cc74981de4/addons/hr_work_entry/models/hr_version.py#L222-L226

For non-flexible calendar:
Public holidays and worked-time leaves are both clipped to the static working schedule (e.g. 8h per working day). overlap was kept in both result sets. https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/3a088e23d3e563c39cdcb252edc8c7cc74981de4/addons/hr_work_entry/models/hr_version.py#L260

For flexible calendar:
The one-day intervals are kept as the actual interval (often 00:00-23:59 for a public holiday). The worked-time on that day is schedule-shaped (e.g. 8h). Subtracting intervals on a full-day public holiday left a 16h fragment instead of removing the public holiday entry. https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/3a088e23d3e563c39cdcb252edc8c7cc74981de4/addons/hr_work_entry/models/hr_version.py#L242-L249

Solution:
We need to make regular leaves take priority over worked-time leaves, compute the real regular leave intervals first, then remove those intervals from the worked-time leave intervals before work entries are created:
- for fully flexible employees, subtract regular leaves from worked leaves;
- for flexible calendars, keep one-day regular leaves as is and subtract them from worked-time leaves
- for non-flexible attendance-based calendars, clip regular leaves on the static schedule, then subtract them from worked-time leaves clipped on the same schedule.
  
This means that when a sandwich worked-time leave overlaps a public holiday, the public holiday consumes that period first. The overlapping part is then removed from `real_worked_leaves`, so no second worked-time entry is generated for the same public holiday period.

opw-6237163

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120300
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119530