The below test sometimes fail for an incorrect reason and leads to a false 
positive:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/6dbeac3a42f46b42c638c05aea8285452c944c3f/addons/stock_dropshipping/tests/test_purchase_order.py#L21

Here is another way to reproduce the issue with a higher probability of 
false positive (and it is actually easier to read and understand what the 
test is doing and what's wrong). It needs to edit the following test:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ec58c5e12987401659ea0d75d3be2905ad1d807d/addons/purchase_stock/tests/test_create_picking.py#L953
With the below diff:
```diff
--- a/addons/purchase_stock/tests/test_create_picking.py
+++ b/addons/purchase_stock/tests/test_create_picking.py
@@ -965,6 +965,7 @@ class TestCreatePicking(ProductVariantsCommon):
             'price': 500.0,
             'discount': 10,
         })]
+        self.product_id_1.standard_price = 1.0
         po = self.env['purchase.order'].create(self.po_vals)  # create a PO for 5 units
         po.button_confirm()
         with Form(po) as po_form:
```
It will lead to:
```
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File ".../test_create_picking.py", line 976, in test_average_cost_updated_after_po_with_discount
    self.assertEqual(self.product_id_1.standard_price, 450.0)
AssertionError: 1.0 != 450.0
```

Here are the explanations: when receiving an AVCO product, at some point, we 
recompute its standard price. To do so, among several operations, we take 
the last manual update, and we ignore all previous SM:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/2dbd88657395da965125c8f085da93e04c9c8f0a/addons/stock_account/models/product.py#L463-L465

This is an issue when things are done too quickly. See the pattern:
```py
self.product_a.standard_price = 5.0 # -> define valuation_from_date
po.confirm() # with another cost
receipt.button_validate() # -> define move.date
``` 
In case of a fast execution, both dates will be equal. We therefore ignore 
the SM and rely on the manual update to define the standard price, which is 
not expected. This explains the above `AssertionError`.

Fixing the codebase is quite tricky since the opposite use case could also
happen, aka first processing a receipt and only then modifiying the standard
price.

Tests side, a more important solution should probably be implemented to ease
their redaction and avoid this basic pattern. Yet, a WIP task is changing
the valo for Odoo 20, so the whole logic may change. Second, the current
issue is impacting a lot of builds, so we need to move forward. For both
reason, the commit only "fixes" the current test.

runbot-939955

### Steps to Reproduce
1. Activate any other language (ex. FR)
2. Create a new Discount code in Discount & Loyalty
3. Change your user language preference to FR, open the newly created loyalty reward, and change the Description on Order to Test Discount for both languages
4. Navigate to the backend Product Variants menu and observe how its name did not translate in English

### Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:
**Issue:** When you edit a translation for a loyalty.reward description in a multi-language setup, the product name (`discount_line_product_id.name`) fails to receive the complete translation in all languages. It only updates the current language.

**Solution:**
Override the 'update_field_translations' method on the loyalty.reward model. When changes are saved for the 'description' field on the discount code, intercept the payload and mirror directly at the discount product's `name` field.

### Current behavior before PR:
Updating the reward description only updates the current language and all other languages do not change.

### Desired behavior after PR is merged:
For all languages in which changes are made in a discount code's description, the discount line product name will reflect the same changes. 

opw-6314760

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

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install the `l10n_mx_reports` module and switch to a Mexican company.
- Navigate to Accounting > Reporting > Trial Balance.
- From the dropdown menu, click `SAT (XML)`.
- Open the generated XML file and inspect the `<BCE:Ctas>` nodes.

**Observation:**
- The generated XML uses the following attribute order: `Debe > NumCta > Haber > SaldoFin > SaldoIni`
- However, the SAT-recommended structure is: `NumCta > SaldoIni > Debe > Haber > SaldoFin`

**Root Cause:**
At [1], the attributes of the `<BCE:Ctas>` node are defined in an order 
that differs from the SAT-recommended structure. While the XML remains 
valid, the generated report does not match the layout recommended by the 
Mexican government specification.

**Fix:**
This commit reorders the `<BCE:Ctas>` attributes to follow the 
SAT-recommended structure, aligning the generated XML with 
the behavior introduced at [2] for `saas-19.3`.

backport-of: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/115374

[1]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/cb9c19272309d793379fa4d23145162f72fa5552/l10n_mx_reports/data/templates/cfdibalance.xml#L15-L20

[2]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/acf0929a88ec788aecd44f6b4c647e468dc0a319/l10n_mx_reports/data/templates/cfdibalance.xml#L17-L22

opw-6297711

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#122469
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#121440