**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install Accounting

- Create an invoice:
  * Customer: Partner A
  * Total: 30.00
- Confirm the invoice
- Create a second invoice for the same customer:
  * Customer: Partner A
  * Total; 10.00
- Confirm the invoice

- From the invoice list, select both invoice
- Create payment:
  * Journal: Bank
  * Group Payments: [checked]
  * Group Payments: [checked]
  * Amount: 40.00

- Create a third invoice for another customer:
  * Customer: Partner B
  * Total: 25.00
- Confirm the invoice
- Register payment from the invoice

- Create a fourth invoice for another customer:
  * Customer: Partner C
  * Total; 40.00
- Confirm the invoice
- Register payment from the invoice

- From the payment list, select all 3 payments and create batch payment
- Validate the batch payment

- From Accounting dashboard, open Bank journal
- Create a new bank statement line of 105.00
- Match it with the batch payment

At that point, the statement line is reconciled with the 4 invoices and the 3 payments are marked as paid.

- Go to the fourth invoice
- Reset it to draft
- Change the price
- Save

When the amount of the invoice is changed, the statement line is unreconciled and all the payments should change state from "Paid" to "In Process".

**Issue:**
All the single payments have their state correctly changed to "In Process", except for the group payment for the 2 first invoices, which leads to undesired values when trying to reconcile the statement line with the batch payment again.

**Cause:**
When the statement is unreconciled, all the partial reconcile records are deleted and the state of the linked payments are updated to "In Process".
The payments are retrieved by checking if there are linked to an account move present in the partial reconcile record and if the amount of the payment matches the amount of the partial reconcile record. In case of a group payment, there are 2 partial reconcile records for each invoice linked to the payment.
Therefore, in that case, the amount doesn't match the amount of the payment because it matches the amount of one of the invoice.

opw-6141089

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#122195
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120210

**Steps to Reproduce:**
- Install the Accounting and Contacts modules.
- Enable Quick Encoding for Customer Invoices and Vendor Bills in the company 
  settings.
- Create a new customer: Assign a salesperson.
- Ensure:
  - The salesperson is not a login user.
  - The customer language, salesperson's language, and Login user's language 
    are different. Example:
     - Customer language: English
     - Salesperson language: French
     - Login user language: French
- Create a customer invoice using the Upload Document functionality.
- Select the customer created above.
- Use Quick Edit mode and enter an amount and Click Confirm.

**Issue:**
- When the invoice notification is rendered in a language different from the one
  used during the write operation, the notification rendering flow calls 
  _notify_by_email_prepare_rendering_context().
- During rendering, the code executes:
```
self.tax_totals.get('total_amount_currency', 0)
```
- Since tax_totals is protected, the ORM returns False instead of the expected
  dictionary, leading to:
```
AttributeError: 'bool' object has no attribute 'get'
```

**Root Cause:**
- This issue occurs in Quick Edit mode because tax_totals is [not read-only](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/1f7a62d38303a992f501b4ecdb1bee437f7279b8/addons/account/views/account_move_views.xml#L1359) 
  in Quick Edit mode and is included in [the values](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/1f7a62d38303a992f501b4ecdb1bee437f7279b8/addons/web/static/src/model/relational_model/record.js#L708) sent by the web client during write().
- During create()/write(), _get_protected_vals() marks tax_totals as protected.
- Since tax_totals is a [@api.depends_context('lang')](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/1f7a62d38303a992f501b4ecdb1bee437f7279b8/addons/account/models/account_move.py#L975) computed field, it 
  maintains a separate cache per language. [During write()](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/1f7a62d38303a992f501b4ecdb1bee437f7279b8/addons/account/models/account_move.py#L3955), the [field becomes 
  protected](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/1f7a62d38303a992f501b4ecdb1bee437f7279b8/addons/account/models/account_move.py#L3863) by [env.protecting()](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/1f7a62d38303a992f501b4ecdb1bee437f7279b8/odoo/orm/fields.py#L1738). While the protection is still active, the mail 
  notification flow renders the email using the recipient's language. If the 
  corresponding language-specific cache entry for tax_totals is not available, 
  the ORM cannot recompute the protected field and returns False instead 
  of the expected dictionary.

- The rendering code assumes tax_totals is always a dictionary and directly 
  calls  .get(), leading to the crash.

**Solution:**
- Exclude tax_totals from _get_protected_vals().
- tax_totals is already handled explicitly after create()/write(), so protecting 
  it is unnecessary. This allows the field to be recomputed during notification 
  rendering when required.

**Result:**
- Invoice notifications render correctly in all languages.
- No RPC crash occurs when rendering notifications after Quick Edit.

**Runbot reproduction: [video](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/5f045efb-37de-40aa-b135-1368b1601d61)**

**opw-6209647**

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#266335

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install Accounting

- Create an invoice:
  * Customer: Partner A
  * Total: 30.00
- Confirm the invoice
- Create a second invoice for the same customer:
  * Customer: Partner A
  * Total; 10.00
- Confirm the invoice

- From the invoice list, select both invoice
- Create payment:
  * Journal: Bank
  * Group Payments: [checked]
  * Amount: 40.00

- Create a third invoice for another customer:
  * Customer: Partner B
  * Total: 25.00
- Confirm the invoice
- Register payment from the invoice

- Create a fourth invoice for another customer:
  * Customer: Partner C
  * Total; 40.00
- Confirm the invoice
- Register payment from the invoice

- From the payment list, select all 3 payments and create batch payment
- Validate the batch payment

- From Accounting dashboard, open Bank journal
- Create a new bank statement line of 105.00
- Match it with the batch payment

At that point, the statement line is reconciled with the 4 invoices and the 3 payments are marked as paid.

- Go to the fourth invoice
- Reset it to draft
- Change the price
- Save

When the amount of the invoice is changed, the statement line is unreconciled and all the payments should change state from "Paid" to "In Process".

**Issue:**
All the single payments have their state correctly changed to "In Process", except for the group payment for the 2 first invoices, which leads to undesired values when trying to reconcile the statement line with the batch payment again.

**Cause:**
When the statement is unreconciled, all the partial reconcile records are deleted and the state of the linked payments are updated to "In Process".
The payments are retrieved by checking if there are linked to an account move present in the partial reconcile record and if the amount of the payment matches the amount of the partial reconcile record. In case of a group payment, there are 2 partial reconcile records for each invoice linked to the payment.
Therefore, in that case, the amount doesn't match the amount of the payment because it matches the amount of one of the invoice.

opw-6141089




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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#272954
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#269510

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install the `l10n_gt_edi` module and switch to a `GT Company`.
- Create a new vendor bill with:
  - Vendor: GT Company
  - GT Document Type: `FESP`
  - Add taxes `VAT Withholding 12%` and `ISR Withholding 5%` in Invoice lines.
- `Confirm` the bill and `Send to SAT`.
- From the gear icon, click `Download` > `PDF`.

**Error1:**
`KeyError: 'gran_total'`

**Error2:**
`KeyError: 'retencion_grand_total'`

**Root Cause:**
In commit [1], the code at [2] missed calling `_l10n_gt_edi_add_base_values()` 
before `_l10n_gt_edi_add_withholding_values()`. However, 
`_l10n_gt_edi_add_withholding_values()` uses the `gran_total` value, which is 
initialized by `_l10n_gt_edi_add_base_values()`, resulting in a `KeyError`.

Additionally, the report template at [3] references `retencion_grand_total` 
instead of the correct key `retencion_gran_total`, causing another `KeyError`.

**Fix:**
This commit prevents errors and ensures users can successfully download 
the PDF by applying a fix similar to [4],

[1]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/44afd19e4ed0827e343af0e584c81e579935c9e8

[2]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/9846b337cfe1876017c7c2ce3041569d7a2ac03f/l10n_gt_edi/models/account_move.py#L305-L328

[3]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/9846b337cfe1876017c7c2ce3041569d7a2ac03f/l10n_gt_edi/views/report_invoice.xml#L72

[4]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/9846b337cfe1876017c7c2ce3041569d7a2ac03f/l10n_gt_edi/models/account_move.py#L790-L800

opw-6323049

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#122398
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#122030

[FIX] stock,*: properly compute forecast availability after PO resupply scrap
* : mrp_subcontracting_purchase

# How to reproduce
- Enable Subcontracting in the settings
- Create Product A with :
	- Quantity : > 0
	- Routes : Buy & Resupply Subcontractor on Order
- Create Product B
- Create BOM for that Product with
	- BOM Type : Subcontracting
	- Subcontractors : any
	- Component : Product A
- Create a PO for Product B
- Confirm the PO Order
- Use the Resupply smart button
- Click on the gear icons > Scrap
- Scrap Product A

# The problem
A traceback will appear.

# Cause
There are two main ways to get the picking type's code of a move. Either :

- `product_code` which is a related field to `picking_id.picking_type_id.code` :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0442c66d26b0c23313f17c566b16e34e7b22c2b6/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L174

- `picking_type_id.code` where `picking_type_id` is a computed field :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0442c66d26b0c23313f17c566b16e34e7b22c2b6/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L283-L287

When we scrap the products, we call the `do_scrap()` function that creates a new
scrap move :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0442c66d26b0c23313f17c566b16e34e7b22c2b6/addons/stock/models/stock_scrap.py#L158

When we do so, the create move's `picking_code` wil be the code of the picking type
of the current picking (The subcontractor resupply) :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0442c66d26b0c23313f17c566b16e34e7b22c2b6/addons/stock/models/stock_scrap.py#L151

But `picking_type_id.code` will be different because there is a
`default_picking_type_id` value set in the context by :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0442c66d26b0c23313f17c566b16e34e7b22c2b6/addons/purchase_stock/models/purchase_order.py#L223

In our case, theses values end up not being the same. Later, when we compute the forecast
information of the move, we prefetch virtual available keys and put the moves in a dict
based on those keys.
The computation of the virtual available key is based on the `picking_code` of the move :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0442c66d26b0c23313f17c566b16e34e7b22c2b6/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L488-L490
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0442c66d26b0c23313f17c566b16e34e7b22c2b6/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L496-L499

When later we try to fetch back the move, we compute the virtual available key based on
`picking_type_id.code` :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0442c66d26b0c23313f17c566b16e34e7b22c2b6/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L529-L536

But since `picking_code` and `picking_type_id.code` are different, the output
`key_virtual_available` is also different. Essentially, we add the move in the
dict with key A and then try to fetch it back using key B, which gives us a KeyError.

opw-6145887

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#272171
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263799

## **Issue:**
When validating a delivery, users with Sales: Own Documents Only and Inventory Administrator access rights can encounter an access error if the delivery belongs to a sale order owned by another salesperson.

## **Steps to reproduce:**
- Install sale_subscription_stock.
- Create a user with Sales: Own Documents Only and Inventory Administrator access rights.
- Create a sale order as another user.
- Validate the delivery with the restricted user.

## **Solution:**
During _action_done(), [This line](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/19.0/sale_subscription_stock/models/stock_picking.py#L45) is checking subscription_state. Since the user does not have read access to the sale order, reading this field raises an access error and prevents the delivery from being validated. As the method only needs to read the subscription state, access the field with sudo() to avoid the unnecessary access error while preserving the existing business logic.

Runbot Video : [Video](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1d7U2jTCxaaVk2YJcy3bi2SlYuT-yXMsu/view?usp=drive_link) 

OPW - 6295712

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#122420

Currently an error occurs when user opens stock report after uninstalling mrp.

Steps to replicate:
- Install mrp.
- Uninstall mrp and open `Stock > Reporting > Stock`.

Error:
```
ValueError: Invalid field product.product.is_kits in condition ('is_kits', '=', False)
```

Cause:
- The `mrp` module overrides the `stock.action_product_stock_view` window action domain with `is_kits` field referenced inside [1].

- When mrp is uninstalled, the `is_kits` field is removed from `product.product` but the overridden action domain remains stored in the database. Opening the action then tries to evaluate a domain referencing a non-existent field, resulting in this error.

Solution:
- Restore the original `stock.action_product_stock_view` domain during mrp uninstallation to remove the `is_kits` condition.

[1]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/c8390638cae4b4dafb805bc0d3a4149fb5194934/addons/mrp/views/product_views.xml#L164-L166

sentry-7332688253
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#269512

Steps to reproduce:
- Install `l10n_in_reports` module(Indian Localisation)
- Create a branch in `IN Company` > Select both
- Create separate invoices for each company
- Created the GSTR-1 report for both company
- While generating Excel, select only main company

Traceback:
```py
File "/home/odoo/src/enterprise/19.0/l10n_in_reports/models/account_return.py", line 2537, in action_generate_gstr1_xlsx
gstr1_json = self._get_l10n_in_gstr1_json()
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/home/odoo/src/enterprise/19.0/l10n_in_reports/models/account_return.py", line 1071, in _get_l10n_in_gstr1_json
'b2cs': _get_b2cs_json(AccountMoveLine.search(self._get_section_domain('b2cs'))),
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/home/odoo/src/enterprise/19.0/l10n_in_reports/models/account_return.py", line 672, in _get_b2cs_json
for line, line_tax_details in tax_details.items():
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'items'
```

Cause:
This issue occurs because, while generating the GSTR-1 Excel report for a particular month, [journal_items] contains account moves from both companies. This happens because the [domain] fetches records for both companies, resulting in move [lines] from both companies being included.

However, while generating the Excel report, only one company is selected. As a result, [tax_details_by_move] does not contain the move data for the branch company, which returns None, causing the error to be raised.

Solution:
Pass an empty `{}` for `tax_details` when only a single company is selected.

[journal_items]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/3c3641d9f0753c1ca62285667c4a2786c15e2444/l10n_in_reports/models/account_return.py#L877 
[domain]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/770ffaac14bfcd2c54a7ce6aca27e0010e7884d4/l10n_in_reports/models/account_return.py#L1387-L1393 
[lines]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/3c3641d9f0753c1ca62285667c4a2786c15e2444/l10n_in_reports/models/account_return.py#L1074 
[tax_details_by_move]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/3c3641d9f0753c1ca62285667c4a2786c15e2444/l10n_in_reports/models/account_return.py#L880

opw-6242824

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118614

**Problem:**
On a planned work order, changing only the start date (e.g. in the planning gantt edit dialog) corrupts the expected duration instead of just shifting the end date. The duration drifts to a wrong value, and in some cases (e.g. dependent work orders) collapses to 0.

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Plan a work order on a workcenter (start, end, expected duration).
2. Open it and change only the start date to a time that is not on a working-hours boundary.
3. The end date updates, but the expected duration is now wrong.

**Expected behavior:**
Changing the start date replans the work order: the duration is kept and the end date is recomputed from it. This is how 19.0 behaves and how dragging the pill in the gantt already behaves.

**Cause of the issue:**
Changing date_start triggers _onchange_date_start, which recomputes date_finished from start + duration via plan_hours. That cascades into _onchange_date_finished, which recomputes duration_expected from the dates via get_work_duration_data. Since the resource calendar refactor in 19.2, plan_hours and get_work_duration_data are no longer exact inverses around the work order's own planned slot, so the round trip drifts the duration.

**Fix:**
Only recompute the duration when the end date was edited on its own. When date_finished already matches the planned end for the current duration, it was merely derived from the start change, so the duration is kept. This keeps the duration authoritative when moving the work order while still recomputing it on a genuine end-date resize.

opw-6231569

[[REF] mail: consolidate attachment Content-Type normalization](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/273097/changes/ad4e34c5c79450b1e976d9ba7047487218690585)

Two separate spots handled malformed Content-Type headers. Merge them
into one block, read the raw header once with partition(';') to have
both the type and its parameters available without re-fetching the
header for each case.

No behavior change.

[[FIX] mail: handle attachment Content-Type with no subtype](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/273097/changes/7b410fbe606b7e476f0005485e42783834983b75)

Some mailers send attachments with a bare token as Content-Type instead
of a valid 'type/subtype' pair, e.g.:

    Content-Type: base64; name="foo.pdf"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

Python's email library normalises any MIME type without a '/' to
'text/plain'. get_content() then decodes the base64 payload as UTF-8
text, replacing invalid byte sequences with U+FFFD. The subsequent
encode('utf-8') bakes those replacements in, permanently corrupting
the stored file.

Per Postel's law [RFC 761], be liberal in what we accept: detect these
non-standard types via `not all(mimetype.partition('/'))` and fall back
to application/octet-stream, keeping the original parameters (filename,
charset, etc.) so the attachment is stored intact.

opw-6227526

Currently on the pos payment method form, if you click "Select more" on the journal field, you will see two buttons 'New' & 'Create New'.

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
* Open any pos payment method
* Select the journal field
* Select "Search more"
> See two creation buttons

Why the fix:
------------
One button is the standard "On search more" button which can be hidden using options such as no_create, no_create_edit, ...

The second button is defined on the list view for journals and since the search more uses the list view it shows the button as well. Currently we can do that with a context key to ensure that on the "real" list view it's still visible.

Why do we want to hide those buttons? Asked the R&D accounting team, it should not be allowed to create journals on the fly. You should only be able to create them inside accounting app.

This behavior is not limited to this view but will only be applied locally. The fix can however be applied everywhere where needed.

Before the fix:
-------------------
<img width="700" height="417" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/ca11ea13-c38e-40a1-9848-cbc5edc6226e" />
<img width="1507" height="887" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/1cde5d3b-3372-4aca-b5d0-2319bd82c1de" />

After the fix:
----------------
<img width="707" height="474" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/01dc7b42-43d6-4b18-a12d-54330d51b92b" />
<img width="1457" height="870" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/ff387d3f-f59c-47ad-abfe-a2003669db1a" />


opw-6131231

Currently on the pos payment method form, if you click "Select more" on the journal field, you will see two buttons 'New' & 'Create New'.

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
* Open any pos payment method
* Select the journal field
* Select "Search more"
> See two creation buttons

Why the fix:
------------
One button is the standard "On search more" button which can be hidden using options such as no_create, no_create_edit, ...

The second button is defined on the list view for journals and since the search more uses the list view it shows the button as well. Currently we can do that with a context key to ensure that on the "real" list view it's still visible.

Why do we want to hide those buttons? Asked the R&D accounting team, it should not be allowed to create journals on the fly. You should only be able to create them inside accounting app.

Before the fix:
-------------------
<img width="700" height="417" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/6b67a45b-6e52-4e02-a827-1aca5d8417ec" />
<img width="1507" height="887" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/077bc3ab-bc6e-42a1-85e6-adf778000b92" />

After the fix:
-----------------
<img width="707" height="474" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/da2a43e3-01c0-44c5-b529-e73f21825150" />
<img width="1457" height="870" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/b658b95f-5bc3-4b7a-9e7c-8b182cab48a0" />


opw-6131231

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install Documents app
- Upload a sound file (mp3 for example, but the
    behavior is the same for other formats)
- Share the document and copy the link
- Log out
- Paste the link
- Click on preview button
- Media is working fine on Firefox
- Media won't read on Chrome
```
Loading media from '' violates the following Content Security Policy directive: "default-src 'none'".
Note that 'media-src' was not explicitly set, so 'default-src' is used as a fallback.
The action has been blocked.
```

**Issue:**
Since [1] default CSP Headers are too strict for Chrome default media rendering, which breaks the file preview (and force user download).

This only impacts Chrome as they seem to render generate `<video><source>` elements to render the file which triggers a secondary request and fails due to the CSP constraint.

**Fix:**
Could re-apply the header fix of 17.4 (see [2]), but it seems better to block the preview of audio files as well by default (to match how we manage videos).

(Note: we don't want to be used as a media streaming platform)

[1] (set csp to none by default) https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/64beb80205dffe4b432c8b5813a3271b073fa85e
[2] (similar issue which was not fixed in 18.0+) https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/a7af78eeb2b9763045a5bda8714172f5e7402df8
[3] (mp4 preview removed) https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/ea88cf7c6d5f077b60fb59347659507fded0e2fe

opw-6235043

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119644

## Issue
When using the *Auto Plan* feature on a planning slot with a Role and a Project set, a resource which operated on the same project will be chosen if available, without taking into account the Role set on the slot.

## Steps to reproduce
1. Install Project Planning (`project_forecast`)
2. In Planning > Configuration > Roles, create two planning roles A and B
    - Role A: Assign a resource R
    - Role B: No resource
3. Open Planning (Schedule by Resource), and go back a few weeks (to prevent overlaps with potential demo data)
4. Create two new slots:
    1. Set Role B and a random Project P, then click Auto Plan: there should be no available resource (because we didn't set any resource for Role B)
    2. Set Role A and the same Project P, then click Auto Plan: it should assign the resource R assigned to Role A
5. After assigning a resource to the slot for Role A, edit the Open Shift for Role B again and click Auto Plan: **it assigns the same resource R, even though that resource is not assigned to Role B.**

## Cause
The `_get_open_shifts_resources` override in `project_forecast` looks for resources that were assigned to slots related to the same project. It does not filter resources based on the requested role.

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/885edbc270a86ab76e0a6eff4acb5767c0fe29d1/project_forecast/models/planning_slot.py#L104-L116

This means that resources that are not part of the requested role can be assigned to the slot, as long as the resource operated on another slot for the same project.

opw-6325744

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#122035