When a popover is used on top of an iframe, when clicking outside the
popover but inside the iframe to close the popover, the click away is
detected through a blur event.
The close during the click away is used by some features to apply the
change.

Setting the text color in the editor might modify the DOM structure
and therefore needs to readjust the selection to match the new DOM
nodes. When confirming a color, or when applying intermediary changes
this behavior is required. But when the color confirmation happens
because of a click away, this selection gets on the way of the
selection made by clicking away.

The sequence of events is as follows:
- pointerdown in iframe: sets the selection based on the click
- main window blur: color gets applied, and selection gets reset
- pointermove in iframe: expands selection to new position

This commit avoids this unwanted reset by detecting the click away
through a pointerdown on the iframe - thus making the selection
adjustment before the default browser handling of the event actually
sets the selection on the clicked position.

Steps to reproduce:
- Edit a website page
- Drop a text snippet
- Select a word
- Set a custom color using the color area - so that the color picker
remains open
- Click (and hold) in the empty area after the text paragraph
- Move pointer by a few pixels

=> The text anchor remained the one of the former selection, but the
focus was set according to the pointer position

Note that Firefox did not blur the main window, therefore this change
actually also unifies the behavior of Chrome and Firefox.

The discrepancy between Chrome and Firefox's handling of the blur
event in this situation seems to be related to either prioritizing the
DOM specifications or the HTML specifications - and the way the are
interpreted.

The DOM Standard [1] relies on UIEvents [2] which states: "A user agent
MUST dispatch this event when an event target loses focus."

The HTML Standard defines how to compute the focus [3] and relies on
nested browsing contexts [4].
Typically, the simpler readable description for developers says:
"document.hasFocus()
Returns true if key events are being routed through or to document;
otherwise, returns false. Roughly speaking, this corresponds to
document, or a document nested inside document, being focused."

[1]: https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#biblio-uievents
[2]: https://w3c.github.io/uievents/#event-type-blur
[3]: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/interaction.html#focus-processing-model
[4]: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/document-sequences.html#nested-browsing-contexts

task-6268573

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#269742

## [FIX] website_sale_renting_planning: prepare payment if demo is installed

Before this commit, the demo  `payment.provider` for the tests was being created in `setUpClass` this caused an issue because `payment_demo` is not a dependency of this module, therefore it may not be installed while these tests are running and cause the tests to error at setup.

After this commit, the `payment.provider` creation was moved into the tests after the check for `payment_demo` installation, ensuring that `payment_demo` would exist when a `payment.provider` is prepared.

https://runbot.odoo.com/odoo/runbot.build.error/940273

## [FIX] website_sale_renting_planning: unforbid weekend in tests
Before this commit, the company had `renting_forbidden_sat` and `renting_forbidden_sun` enabled which made it not possible to rent products from website if the rental date included a saturday or sunday.

This commit fixes that but setting  `renting_forbidden_sat` and `renting_forbidden_sun` to False and allowing rental on all days of the week.

https://runbot.odoo.com/odoo/runbot.build.error/940312

## [FIX] website_sale_renting_planning: search for product in shop page

Before this commit, the website `/shop` page would display all published products in the db, this could cause the `website_sale_renting_planning_buy_product` tour to fail if the setup product is not in the first page.

After this commit, the `/shop` page is now access with a search on the product to ensure there won't be other products in the first page.

https://runbot.odoo.com/odoo/runbot.build.error/940275

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#121342

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

This error occurs when a model has properties and a `computed` field or `onchange` method depends on them.

`record.update()` is asynchronous. When an onchange or computed field is triggered, an additional request is sent to the server, increasing the time required to complete the update. See:

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/727fe7412bb37c1664106625e248264d2aab6809/addons/web/static/src/model/relational_model/record.js#L1207-L1211

However, `PropertiesField` is rendered before the `update` is completed. See:

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/727fe7412bb37c1664106625e248264d2aab6809/addons/web/static/src/views/fields/properties/properties_field.js#L86

As a result, the property labels are not yet available and the following traceback is raised:

`TypeError: Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'getRootNode')
`
After this commit, the update is awaited before rendering PropertiesField, ensuring that the property labels are available.

**Steps to reproduce:**

1. Install the example module. [project_task_property.zip](https://github.com/user-attachments/files/29138424/project_task_property.zip)
2. Open or create a project task.
3. From the Action menu, click `Add Properties`.

The error is raised.

<img width="1520" height="956" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/a3051ddf-5af0-4d3a-8ff7-c3fb4f7a69d2" />


TT63331
@Tecnativa @pedrobaeza

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#272571
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#271082

Steps to reproduce:
===================
1. Add several delivery addresses & billing addresses
2. Add a product to the cart and go to checkout.
3. Select a specific delivery address and a different invoice address.
4. Pay and click "Skip" immediately on that page.
5. Open the resulting sales order.

=> The delivery address is reset to the company's first delivery child
   instead of the one selected during checkout.

Root cause:
===========
`partner_shipping_id` and `partner_invoice_id` are stored computed fields
(compute + store + readonly=False) that depend on `partner_id`. Any write
that includes `partner_id`, even writing the same value, retriggers the
compute and overwrites a manually selected address with the result of
`partner_id.address_get()`.

`_get_and_cache_current_cart` resurrects the customer's draft cart when it
is no longer referenced in the session and re-runs
`_update_address(partner, ['partner_id'])` on it to refresh the
pricelist and fiscal position. Clicking "Skip" runs `sale_reset()`,
which clears the session cart key while the order is still draft, so the
next cart access takes that abandoned-cart branch and the redundant
`partner_id` write discards the selected delivery/invoice address.
Waiting a few seconds lets the order reach the 'sale' state first, so
the draft search no longer matches and the address is kept, which is why
the issue is timing dependent.

Fix:
====
In `_update_address`, when partner_id is written, keep the delivery and
invoice addresses already set on the cart if they still belong to the new
partner's company (same `commercial_partner_id`) by writing them in the same
`write()` so the recompute does not override them. Addresses that do not
belong to the new partner are still recomputed to the partner's defaults.

opw-6267188

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#270300

Problem:
Since saas-19.2 (99f38be260c3c5523306e4ffcb4cf18436d40568), portal users crash when opening a Knowledge article containing items with "Created by" or "Last edited by" columns.

Cause:
Portal users are restricted to their own res.users record. Reading create_uid and last_edition_uid of internal users raises an AccessError. This was not raised in 19.0.
Specifically, the `many2one_avatar_user` field widget defines `write_date` in `relatedFields`, which forces the RPC to read the `write_date` field of the target user. Since portal users cannot read other users' records, it raises an AccessError.

Solution:
Only include `write_date` in the field widget's `relatedFields` if the current user is an internal user. For portal users, `relatedFields` will be empty, avoiding the AccessError.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Create a Knowledge article.
2. Add an "Item list" element.
3. Add some items to the list.
4. Share the article with a portal user.
5. Open the article as the portal user.
6. Observe that only the list header is visible and the items are not displayed.

opw-6199714

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

**Steps to reproduce**
- Use a french company with `l10n_fr_hr_holidays` installed
- Change the duration type of the time off type set as the "Company Paid Time Off Type" in the French Time Off Localization settings to "Half-Day"
- Company Working Schedule:
	- Attendance on a day from 10 to 19, Day Period: Full Day
- Part-time employee Working Schedule:
	- Attendance on the same day from 11 to 12, Day Period: Morning
	- Attendance on the same day from 13 to 19, Day Period: Afternoon
- Create a full day time off for the part time employee on that day, using the time off type set as the "Company Paid Time Off Type" (start am, end pm)

-> Excepted: time off duration is 1 day
-> Actual: time off duration is 0.89 day

**Change**
Now that `request_unit_half` of a leave is a simple related to the `request_unit` of the leave type, it becomes important to not rely on a call to `_get_durations` using the company's calendar to compute the leave's duration, as it may not be fully accurate when the company's working hours and employee's working hours are not aligned.
Continuation of 05e71eb206eb02a8d15708e6fb532a732a767d6d

`_get_fr_date_from_to` is also adapted to take into account multi-day leaves ending in the morning while the employee works in the afternoon (in which case it should not be extended in case the employee doesn't work the next day).

opw-6000011

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#269890
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#253059

The full composer builds default_partner_ids by doing recipient.persona.id over allRecipients. When a recipient is not linked to a partner, the chatter input inserts it with persona: false here:

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/28c11a068b2ecf521f8ba1da271ebee24f5345ae/addons/mail/static/src/core/web/recipients_input.js#L151

false.id is undefined, so the wizard gets a bad id and clicking the recipient tag crashes with `Invalid ids list: false`.

The persona is false because /mail/partner/from_email returns no partner for unresolved emails when the user does not have base.group_partner_manager. That matches the gate _prepare_post_data already uses for the simple post flow:

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/28c11a068b2ecf521f8ba1da271ebee24f5345ae/addons/mail/controllers/thread.py#L153,L155

The full composer just was not handling that case.

Filter out persona-less recipients from default_partner_ids so the wizard only sees real partner ids. The full composer now drops them the same way the simple post path already does.

Steps to reproduce:
1. As Administrator, create a user with the Sales group only (no Contact Creation).
2. Log in as that user.
3. Open a CRM lead whose Email is set but Customer is empty.
4. Click Send message.
5. Click the expand icon to open the full composer.
6. Click the recipient tag in the To field.

=> Recipient shows as Unnamed and clicking it raises an RPC error.

Ticket [link](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project.task/5974081)
opw-5974081


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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#271422
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#251780

When a user chooses the "Double Opt-in" template (or others using
`_create_records_with_xml_ids`), the system creates records like the
"Confirmed contacts" list and a server action. It also adds an
`ir.model.data` entry for them under the module, but sets
`noupdate=False`.

The problem is that during a module upgrade, Odoo's cleanup process
(`_process_end`) deletes any record marked `noupdate=False` if it
wasn't "reloaded" from a file. Since these records are created
manually in the code and aren't in any XML file, they never get
reloaded, so Odoo just deletes them and the records they point to.

By setting `noupdate=True` when these rows are created, we tell
the system to leave them alone during upgrades. Since these only
exist at runtime and don't have a data file, we don't need to
worry about them being updated later anyway.

The helper was added in
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/fd98660e352512e0b74d91958707687978154833.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Install Marketing Automation
2. Go to Campaigns > New and pick the "Double Opt-in" template, then save
3. Confirm the "Confirmed contacts" mailing list and server action exist
4. Go to Apps and Upgrade Marketing Automation
5. Try to find the mailing list and server action again

=> They disappear after the upgrade.

Ticket [link](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project.task/6140191)
opw-6140191

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#115444

Issue:
----------------------------------------
Doing a search on skills, the employees with the skill but no slot in the time frame aren't shown.

Steps to reproduce:
----------------------------------------
- Install `planning_hr_skills`
- Make sure an employee has the skill "English" and no slots
- Open Planning and type "English" in the search bar, click to search on Skills
- The employee does not show up

Cause:
----------------------------------------
Using the search view on skills, a filter on `resource_ids` is in the domain with a `OR`:

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/5d6d16aae43ffda1532cfa4b06fdcddd7e5b0fcc/planning_hr_skills/views/planning_slot_views.xml#L9

Then a new filter on `resource_ids` is added [here](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/5d6d16aae43ffda1532cfa4b06fdcddd7e5b0fcc/planning_hr_skills/models/planning_slot.py#L14-L43) to do the search on the skill names: `[('resource_ids', 'in', matching_resource_ids)]`.

The domain is then something like this: 
`['&', ('resource_ids', 'in', matching_resource_ids), '|', ('resource_ids', '=', False), ('employee_skill_ids', 'ilike', 'English')]`.

Since fbf8b2ac67c71ca0abfc75df543069696bd2d29b the resulting domain passes through `filter_map_domain()`. `filter_map_domain()` will only keep the leaves on `resource_ids` and the default `AND` will be used between them resulting in: 
`['&', ('resource_ids', 'in', matching_resource_ids), ('resource_ids', '=', False)]` 
which fetches no resources.

So `_group_expand_resource_ids()` doesn't expand.

Solution:
----------------------------------------
Instead of adding the new leaf to retrieve the resources with the right skills, we replace the leaf on `employee_skill_ids`. This ensures the `OR` operations are kept by `filter_map_domain()`.

opw-6296755

Issue:
----------------------------------------
The Planning / Timesheets Analysis report doesn't include most of the planning slots if they have a calendar based on duration.

Steps to reproduce:
----------------------------------------
- Have a 1 day planning slot (8h-17h) for an employee with a calendar based on duration.
- Planning > Reporting > Planning / Timesheets Analysis
- The slot is not included in the report

Cause:
----------------------------------------
The update of how calendars work in saas-19.2 included the `duration_based` option but the query was not adapted. It still checks if the slot start time is lower than the calendar end time on that day:

```sql
F.start_datetime < (d.date::date + (A.hour_to || ' hour')::interval)
AND F.end_datetime > (d.date::date + (A.hour_from || ' hour')::interval)
```

But for duration-based calendars `hour_from` and `hour_to` are stored as `0.0`. So `F.start_datetime < (d.date::date + (A.hour_to || ' hour')::interval)` evaluates to False.

Solution:
----------------------------------------
If the calendar has `duration_based` to True we only check the date.

opw-6217643

**Issue**
Quantity on subcontracted receipts could be overridden after running the
scheduler.

**Steps to reproduce**
- Create a subcontracting product
- Create a PO for 10 units of that product
- Go to receipt and open Subcontracting Productions'
- Change the quantity to 5
- Enable debug mode.
- Run Inventory/Operations/Procurement: run scheduler
- Return to the receipt
-> The receipt quantity is reset to 10 instead of remaining at 5.

**Cause**
Since the refactor introduced in commit: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/fc66e2d4eb638f1486e69cd5920f02c787055da1,
subcontracting receipt moves are no longer automatically picked when the production quantity is modified.
In particular, this test case protects that behavior:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f7fb0a941d6bac39b7057db36f57be079559912c/addons/mrp_subcontracting/tests/test_subcontracting.py#L1629-L1631
When the scheduler runs:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f7fb0a941d6bac39b7057db36f57be079559912c/addons/stock/models/stock_rule.py#L731
it computes the moves to assign:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f7fb0a941d6bac39b7057db36f57be079559912c/addons/stock/models/stock_rule.py#L706-L710
However, subcontracting moves are still included in the assignment domain:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f7fb0a941d6bac39b7057db36f57be079559912c/addons/stock/models/stock_rule.py#L680-L688
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f7fb0a941d6bac39b7057db36f57be079559912c/addons/mrp/models/stock_rule.py#L127-L129
As a result, they are reassigned if they are not already picked:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f7fb0a941d6bac39b7057db36f57be079559912c/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1931-L1937

opw-6229668

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#270837