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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#273820
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#273078

Consider two models like this:
 - model A has fields `base`, `total` and `line_ids` (to model B);
 - model B has fields `price` and `subtotal`.

Field `subtotal` depends on `base`, and field `total` depends on `line_ids.subtotal`, but does not use it in its compute method.

The second time `base` is modified in a form view, method `onchange()` is sent the values of `base`, `total` and `line_ids` (with the former update of `subtotal`).  When putting field `line_ids` in cache, field `subtotal` invalidates field `total` on the main record.  This causes field `total` to be recomputed too soon, which eventually prevents `onchange()` from detecting that `total` has changed.  The form view ends up with an incorrect value of `total`.

The fix consists in setting field `subtotal` in cache without triggering recomputation of dependent fields.  The error actually lies in method `convert_to_cache()` of x2many fields, specifically in the way to handle UPDATE commands.  It should update the corresponding record's cache instead of assigning its fields.

When multiple talent records share the same information, opening the Talent Pools smart button from a matching application will trigger a traceback.

Steps to reproduce the error:
- Install ``hr_recruitment`` module with demo data
- Go to Recruitment > Applications > Talent Pools > Create a new pool
- Go to Recruitment > Applications > All Applications > Create a new application with valid email >
  Click Add to Pool > Select the Talent Pool > Add to Pool
- Duplicate the created talent record
- Create another application with the same email > save > click Talent Pools

Traceback:
```py
ValueError: Expected singleton: hr.applicant(2, 1)
```

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/d4e76a5663223a2a2c6e50d1701fabbdcaf32405/addons/hr_recruitment/models/hr_applicant.py#L857-L859
Here, the talent is searched using matching applicant information.
When a matching talent has been duplicated, the search returns multiple records.
Assigning a multi-records to the many2one field ``pool_applicant_id`` then raises a singleton error.

Solution:
Restrict the duplication of talent.

sentry-7556261128

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#273565
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#270827

### Commit 1:

[FIX] website: prevent CSRF error by blocking duplicate form submission

Before this commit: Clicking the logout button from the website
preview triggered two simultaneous logout requests:

1. The browser performed the default form submission with a valid
   `csrf_token`, destroying the session afterward.
2. During the same click event, `setupClickListener()` intercepted
   the click using `closest('[action]')`, found the parent
   `/web/session/logout` form, and triggered a second POST request
   using `odoo.csrf_token`.

Since the session was already destroyed by the first request, the
second request resulted in a "CSRF validation failed" error.

This commit prevents the default form submission before triggering
the manual POST request, ensuring that only one request is sent.

Runbot-940403

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

### Commit 2:

[FIX] website: enable free sign up setting in test_auth_forms_warning

Steps to reproduce:
1. Install any website related module (e.g. `website`, `website_event`).
2. Keep the default configuration and do not manually enable
   'Free sign up' in Settings.
3. Run `test_auth_forms_warning`.

Before this commit: The test did not programmatically enable the
'Free sign up' setting. As a result, it failed unless a developer
manually navigated to the setting and enabled it beforehand.

After this commit: This commit explicitly enables the "Free sign up"
configuration during test execution, allowing public access to the
`/web/signup` page and ensuring the test passes without any manual
setup.

runbot-940394

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#274115
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#272020

*: [html_builder, mass_mailing]

### Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

- The resize handle SCSS used `border-left/right` on `.col-*` elements which adds real pixels to the box model, shifting column content to the right even when the border was transparent.

- The column resize mechanism (hover detection + drag) was active in website and mass_mailing, conflicting with their own resize handle indicators.

- Website and mass_mailing live inside an outer `.container` which provides Bootstrap gutter padding (`--gutter-x`). The border on top of that made the shift layout.

### Desired behavior after PR is merged:

- Replace `border` with `box-shadow: inset` for the resize handle indicator. `box-shadow` is visual and takes zero space in the box model, so content alignment is preserved.

- Style scope to body:not(.editor_enable) .odoo-editor-editable .o_text_columns
`body:not(.editor_enable)` excludes the builder editor context. Website and mass_mailing rely on Bootstrap classes for their column layout.

- Add `allowTextColumnResize` config flag (default: `true`) in `ColumnPlugin`. Website and mass_mailing set it to `false` to disable the `ResizePlugin` column parameters, preventing conflicts with their own resize handles.

task-6233558

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

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#272487
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#268527

**Steps to Reproduce:**
-  Create a Server Action of type 'Webhook Notification'.
- Select a model containing a field that returns a `frozendict`-based structure (e.g. `account.move` → `needed_terms`).
- Add the field to the webhook fields.
- Open the webhook sample payload preview.

**Issue:**
- During sample payload generation:
   - The selected fields are read from a sample record.
   - A selected field returns a structure containing `frozendict` objects.
   - The payload is serialized using `json.dumps()`.
   - JSON serialization fails with:
```text
TypeError: keys must be str, int, float, bool or None, not frozendict
```
  - The webhook sample payload computation crashes and the preview cannot be displayed.

**Root Cause:**
- The webhook sample payload may contain `frozendict` objects returned by selected fields.
- The serializer used for payload generation does not handle such mapping-like objects, causing  `json.dumps()` to fail.

**Solution:**
- Use a serializer that converts mapping-like objects into JSON-compatible structures before serializing the webhook sample payload.

**OPW-6295777**

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

Current behavior before PR:

Desired behavior after PR is merged:




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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#273119
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#271864

In a multi-company setup with a website per company, the unsubscribe link in mass mailing emails could send recipients to the login page instead of the unsubscribe confirmation page.

### Steps to reproduce

1. Enable multi-company and create a second company `Company B`.
2. Create two websites with different domains, one per company:
   - `Website A` on the main company, domain `http://website-a.test`
   - `Website B` on `Company B`, domain `http://website-b.test`
3. Set the system parameter `web.base.url` to `http://website-a.test`. System parameters are global, so this value applies to the whole database regardless of the company you switch to.
4. Create a contact and set its `Company` field to `Company B`.
5. In Email Marketing, create a mailing with recipient model `Contact`, target the contact above, pick any template with an unsubscribe link, and send it.
6. Open the email in an incognito window and click the unsubscribe link: you land on the login page instead of the unsubscribe page.

### Cause

Mass mailing builds the unsubscribe link in two steps.

First, each email body is rendered for its recipient. While rendering, relative URLs like `/unsubscribe_from_list` are turned into absolute URLs by prepending a base URL. That base URL comes from the recipient record itself: `recipient.get_base_url()`. The `website` module overrides this so that, when the record has a company, it returns that company's website domain. For a contact in `Company B`, the body ends up with `http://website-b.test/unsubscribe_from_list`.

Second, right before sending, `mail_mail._prepare_outgoing_list` replaces that placeholder URL with a per-recipient signed URL pointing to `/confirm_unsubscribe`. It does this by plain string replacement: it looks for `{base_url}/unsubscribe_from_list` in the body and swaps it. The `base_url` used here came from `self.mailing_id.get_base_url()`. A mailing has no company, so its base URL falls back to the global `web.base.url`, which in our setup is `http://website-a.test`.

The two base URLs no longer match. The body contains the website B URL, but the replacement code searches for the website A URL. The search fails, the placeholder stays in the email, and the recipient clicks a link to `/unsubscribe_from_list`. That route only redirects to `/mailing/my`, which requires being logged in, so the user lands on the login page.

### Fix

Compute the base URL from the recipient record (the same record used when rendering the body) instead of the mailing. The two URLs then agree and the replacement works. Fall back to the mailing's base URL if there is no recipient model on the mail.

opw-4914203

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#274191
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264055

### Steps to reproduce:
- Download 'Sales' and 'Timesheets' apps
- Create a service product invoiced on delivered quantities with timesheet tracking
- Create and confirm a SO for quantity 1
- Log 20h on timesheets
- Invoice the SO
- Create a credit note for 11 hours => only 9 hours are invoiced
- Log 5h more on timesheets
- Back to the SO > create invoice again
> All the 25hrs are to invoiced, although 9 of them were invoiced before

### Cause of Issue:
When generating the new invoice, `_recompute_qty_to_invoice` calls `_get_delivered_quantity_by_analytic` which retrieves the analytic values for the SO line.

The values retrieved are later used to determine the delivered quantity, which is later assigned to be `line.qty_to_invoice` without taking into account the already invoiced hours. https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/7a6518e39d34575a3977e7c4a0053a45223e203c/addons/sale_timesheet/models/sale_order_line.py#L176-L186

### Fix:
Ensures that hours that have already been completely invoiced are deducted from the quantity to invoice.

opw-6253650

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#274035
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#268025

Since 17.0, `webp` images can be uploaded at any resolution, whereas every other format is refused above IMAGE_MAX_RESOLUTION (50 Mpx) when the attachment is created on the server.

Root cause
===========
`ImageProcess` grouped webp together with empty sources and SVG and set `self.image = False`, returning before the `verify_resolution` check. As a result the resolution limit enforced for `png/jpeg/...` was never applied to `webp`.

Fix
===
Split `webp` out of the skip branch: it is still not processed as before, but its resolution is now read from the RIFF header with `get_webp_size()` and checked against `IMAGE_MAX_RESOLUTION`, so oversized webp images are refused on upload like any other format.

Steps to reproduce
===================
1. Edit any page with the website editor
2. Upload a `webp` image larger than 50 Mpx (e.g. 8000x8000)

=> The image is accepted, while a `png/jpeg` of the same size is refused

task-4134430

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#273570
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#273010

When Google sends an all-day event, the payload only contains a date (no time), so the inbound sync stores start and stop at 00:00 UTC. The list view renders those Datetime fields in the viewing user's timezone, so any user west of UTC sees the previous day. The calendar view stays correct because it reads the date part directly.

The rest of Odoo stores all-day events at 08:00 and 18:00 UTC, which keeps the stored datetime inside the same calendar day:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/327ad9b737b0f1d4c547c71a52c45d8433f2b3f4/addons/calendar/models/calendar_event.py#L408-L414

Apply the same 08:00 / 18:00 normalization when building values from a Google all-day payload, so events created on Google match events created in Odoo.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Set your user timezone to America/Winnipeg.
2. Connect a Google account and run the calendar sync.
3. In Google Calendar, create an all-day event on January 31.
4. Sync, then open Calendar in list view in Odoo.

=> Start Date and End Date columns show January 30.

Ticket [link](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project.task/6145880)
opw-6145880

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#271573
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262282

Before this commit, joining a call in a mobile browser (Chrome, Safari, ...) would crop the bottom call controls (mic, camera, hang-up, ...) behind the browser's chrome (URL bar / bottom nav).

On mobile, entering the meeting uses the fullscreen overlay with `keepBrowserHeader: true`, so no native fullscreen is requested and the browser UI stays visible. The overlay was sized with the Bootstrap `vh-100` class (`height: 100vh`), and `100vh` resolves to the *large* viewport (as if the URL bar were hidden). Combined with `fixed-top`, the overlay extended past the visible area and pushed the control row off screen.

This commit sizes the overlay with `100dvh` (dynamic viewport height) instead, which tracks the currently visible viewport and shrinks while the URL bar is shown, keeping the controls on screen. This is a no-op in native/desktop fullscreen where `dvh == vh`, and matches the `dvh` usage already present in the codebase (welcome page, bottom sheet).

task-6353266


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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#273949

Steps to reproduce:
- Configure a thumb drive with a certificate read from the ETA USB tool, so l10n_eg_edi.thumb.drive.certificate is populated
- Open a customer invoice, confirm it, then Sign invoice

Before this commit, signing crashed with:

    `TypeError: encoded_data must be a byte string, not
    odoo.orm.fields_binary.BinaryValueAttachment`

raised by `asn1crypto` in `x509.Certificate.load()`, called from `_generate_signed_attrs__` and identically from `_generate_signer_info__` and `_generate_cades_bes_signature`.

Reading an attachment-backed Binary field now returns a lazy `BinaryValueAttachment` wrapper rather than raw bytes, and `asn1crypto` rejects any value that is not a bytes instance. `set_certificate` and the `l10n_eg_eta_json_doc_file` reads were already moved to the new binary API but the three certificate loads were missed and still passed the wrapper straight to asn1crypto.

Load the certificate through `self.certificate.content`, which returns the stored DER bytes.

opw-6365281

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

### Issue:
When creating a new Indian company, the `Half Up` cash rounding is reassigned to the new company instead of being duplicated
Previous Indian companies lose access to it, causing errors when opening invoices that reference the cash rounding if the user doesn't have access to that company

### Cause:
`cash_rounding_in_half_up` was defined as a `data` record with a fixed XML ID (`l10n_in.cash_rounding_in_half_up`) `_get_in_account_cash_rounding` referenced that XML ID directly and set `company_id` to the current company on each chart of accounts installation
This reassigned the single shared record to the new company instead of creating a new one

Moving the definition to the `@template` decorator without a module-prefixed XML ID lets the chart of accounts system create one record per company, as intended

### Steps to reproduce:
- Install `l10n_in` and switch to `IN Company`
- Check the Cash Rounding records grouped by company
- Create a new Indian company
- Enable both `IN Company` and the new company
- Check the Cash Rounding records grouped by company again

Before the fix, only the last created Indian company has the Cash Rounding record

opw-6318857

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#272866

**Issue**
Having supplier pricelists with at least one vendor inaccessible to the current user can trigger an access error when creating an RFQ approval request.

**Steps to reproduce**
- Have two companies A and B and two users u1 and u2
- user u2 only have access to company A
- With user u1:
	- Create two vendors v1 and v2 without any company assigned
	- Create vendor pricelists for a product for each vendor and assign the company A to the pricelist
- Add the company B for the vendor v2
- With user u2:
	- Open approval application
	- Try to create an approval for an RFQ for that product (the vendor v1 will be automatically selected)
	- Save it -> An access error is thrown

**Cause**
Saving the approval request computes `has_no_seller`, which calls `_select_seller`: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/03c737685ff6dfc95a8bc72491646774fc426b1f/approvals_purchase/views/approval_product_line_views.xml#L9 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/03c737685ff6dfc95a8bc72491646774fc426b1f/approvals_purchase/models/approval_product_line.py#L32 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/03c737685ff6dfc95a8bc72491646774fc426b1f/approvals_purchase/models/approval_product_line.py#L62-L70 Which filtered the right seller
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/c37e76850d3ff790b76493bd1003d80e170bd4bf/addons/product/models/product_product.py#L759 By preparing the sellers:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/c37e76850d3ff790b76493bd1003d80e170bd4bf/addons/product/models/product_product.py#L721 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/c37e76850d3ff790b76493bd1003d80e170bd4bf/addons/product/models/product_product.py#L712 Please note that `self.seller_ids` contains both sellers (even v2) By filtering the suppliers:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/c37e76850d3ff790b76493bd1003d80e170bd4bf/addons/product/models/product_supplierinfo.py#L104-L105 But at that point, one of the supplier in `self`, can be accessed, thus an access error is thrown while trying to access its associated `partner_id`.

opw-6203910

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#269552

sale_loyalty filters amount_type == 'fixed' taxes when building discountable_per_tax in all three helpers: _discountable_order , _discountable_cheapest, _discountable_specific, so fixed taxes stay only on the original product line and are not transferred onto the discount reward line.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
                                            
  pos_loyalty has the equivalent filter on _getDiscountableOnOrder (pos_order.js:962, added in commit 68d35232dd5) but not on the two sibling methods. As a result, when a promotion program uses discount_applicability='cheapest' or 'specific', the fixed tax is copied onto the reward line's tax_ids and because the reward line carries a negative price its fixed-tax contribution cancels the same tax on the original product line, understating the order total.                                                                                                                                                   
   
  This change ports the filter expression from _getDiscountableOnOrder to _getDiscountableOnCheapest and _getDiscountableOnSpecific, preserving the e-wallet / gift-card carve-out so those programs can still consume the full amount. 



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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#261370

### Steps to reproduce:

- Have a company with a branch say "company1" and "branch"
- Create two products: Final product (FP), Component (Comp)
- Set the company_id of FP to "branch" and of Comp to "company1"
- Associate both products with a product category set to avco in company1 (the field is company dependant)
- Create a bom for FP with company_id set to "branch": 1 X Comp
- Impersonate a user whose only allowed and default is "branch"
- Create and confirm an MO for 1 unit of FP
- Set the qty_producing to 1 unit and validate
#### > Access Error: Access to unauthorized or invalid companies.

### Cause of the issue:

Validating the MO will, validate the component move and set its value: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f4d079cc5a9c47672cf1a6747bb073e8e74f7350/addons/stock_account/models/stock_move.py#L168-L173 But, in order to determine this value, it is necessary to determine its `property_cost_method`:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f4d079cc5a9c47672cf1a6747bb073e8e74f7350/addons/stock_account/models/product.py#L60-L69
Now, the issue is that the `product_template` of the component belongs to "company1" so that the user is unauthorized to read the valuation method of the product category for "company1".

opw-6216141

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#274108
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#272429

### Steps to reproduce:

- Have two companies: company1 and company2
- Create a producct P available in both company1 and company2
- with company1, create a kit bom for a product P
- with company2, create and confirm a sale order for 1 unit of P
- with company1, change the bom type of P from kit to manufature
#### > UserError: As long as there are some sale order lines that must be delivered/invoiced and are related to these bills of materials, you can not remove them.

### Cause of the issue:

Changing the bom type from a kit (phantom type) to a non kit will launch a call of the `_ensure_bom_is_free` in order to ensure data integrity if the kit bom was used by a relevant sale order line: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f4c76be062bec47b68ee42505d7d42fed31ac0f2/addons/sale_mrp/models/mrp_bom.py#L15-L18
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f4c76be062bec47b68ee42505d7d42fed31ac0f2/addons/sale_mrp/models/mrp_bom.py#L24-L42
However, this check does not take the company of the bom into account and in the present flow, the company of the bom is different from the company of the supposedly problematic sol.

opw-6290304

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#273839
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#271119

Fix 1 : project, sale_timesheet: remove default_allow_billable context in Create a Project
---------------------
**Issue:**
  When a project is created from the sale app, it is not billable by default, and the sale order / sale order line are not set.

**Fix:**
 Remove default_allow_billable = False in the Create a Project

**Note:**
  default_allow_billable = True already exists in action_view_project_ids, but that default context is replaced when opening the project directly from the view. This happens because default_allow_billable = False is set in the Create a Project
  action.

Fix 2: sale_project: show only relevant project templates per company
----------------
**Steps:**
   - Install sale_project
   - Create two companies (A, B)
   - Create three project templates:
	 - Template A (company A)
	 - Template B (company B)
	 - Template C (no company → visible to all)
   - Create a sale order for company A with a service product
   - Confirm the sale order
   - Create a project and try to select a template

**Issue:**
   All project templates were visible even if the sale order had a company set.

**Fix:**
   Added a filter (domain) on the project template field so only templates for the sale order’s company or templates with   no company are shown. Users cannot select templates from other companies.

task-5074893

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#274194
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#229309

**Problem:**
When creating a new employee, the future timesheets due to public holidays are computed. If the number of public holidays is large (i.e. if the user creates them for each year, several years in the future), then it takes excessively long and the action may not complete.

**Cause:**
The pytz method `localize` and comparing times with non-static timezones is done repeatedly and unnecessarily which becomes costly with more records.

**Solution:**
Only localize the time when absolutely necessary (determining the date of the leave in the calendar timezone).

**Performance Stats:**
|Record count|Time before|Queries before|Time after|Queries after|
|------------|-----------|--------------|----------|-------------|
|100         |3.1s       |393           |0.8s      |117          |
|1,000       |22.3s      |2,090         |1.5s      |183          |
|10,000      |Timeout    |N/A           |6.7s      |541          |

opw-6087422

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#270684
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263953

**Issue**
In subcontracting, deleting a raw move line and adding a new one in the same editing flow can lead to a validation error during production recording.

**Steps to reproduce**
- Create a subcontracting product with a comp A
- Create and confirm a purchase order of that product (with the subcontracting partner)
- Open the associated delivery
- Open the move details (hamburger button)
- Delete the move line linked to the comp A
- Create a new move line for a comp B with a quantity of 1
- Record the production
-> A validation error occurs: the mandatory field `product_uom_id` is not set.

**Cause**
The regression comes from this commit: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/54f10b56f577ad9ed5575bd396dba7d20d22fc2e

While assigning `move_raw_ids`, the inverse method is triggered:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/9267b2d1a9b2d2d6a33eceab07d572406c68c723/addons/mrp_subcontracting/models/mrp_production.py#L34
At this stage, newly added lines are still virtual records (`line`):
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/9267b2d1a9b2d2d6a33eceab07d572406c68c723/addons/mrp_subcontracting/models/mrp_production.py#L38
The previous implementation directly unlinked removed move lines (see commit https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/54f10b56f577ad9ed5575bd396dba7d20d22fc2e):
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/9267b2d1a9b2d2d6a33eceab07d572406c68c723/addons/mrp_subcontracting/models/mrp_production.py#L40-L43
Which will eventually flush and invalidate all the cache:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0e78b4fd2ab904f2e12107cb6ff7cc11d512259f/odoo/models.py#L4666
And since `line` is a virtual record (not in db), its associated values will be reset, among those, `product_uom_id`.
Later, when the move line is reassigned:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0e78b4fd2ab904f2e12107cb6ff7cc11d512259f/addons/mrp_subcontracting/models/mrp_production.py#L49
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0e78b4fd2ab904f2e12107cb6ff7cc11d512259f/odoo/models.py#L5223-L5228

the validation fails because the virtual line no longer contains the required values.

**Additional note**
An alternative could have been using Command but since this line:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0e78b4fd2ab904f2e12107cb6ff7cc11d512259f/addons/mrp_subcontracting/models/mrp_production.py#L42
can not be converted to:
`Command.set([line.id for line in lines])`
because `lines` may also contain virtual records.
This causes an invalid quantity for the move. Indeed, even if the command operator would update the quantity
on the `move_line` correctly, it won't for the quantity of the `move` because of its associated compute method:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/26ba95ac1c5bbb24975efb1a6f53c1ab47b61532/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L399-L400
that relies on `.ids`, which is `[]` on virtual records.
Therefore, keep the change minimal.

opw-6133281

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#267279
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263058

When Google sends an all-day event, the payload only contains a date (no time), so the inbound sync stores start and stop at 00:00 UTC. The list view renders those Datetime fields in the viewing user's timezone, so any user west of UTC sees the previous day. The calendar view stays correct because it reads the date part directly.

The rest of Odoo stores all-day events at 08:00 and 18:00 UTC, which keeps the stored datetime inside the same calendar day:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/327ad9b737b0f1d4c547c71a52c45d8433f2b3f4/addons/calendar/models/calendar_event.py#L408-L414

Apply the same 08:00 / 18:00 normalization when building values from a Google all-day payload, so events created on Google match events created in Odoo.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Set your user timezone to America/Winnipeg.
2. Connect a Google account and run the calendar sync.
3. In Google Calendar, create an all-day event on January 31.
4. Sync, then open Calendar in list view in Odoo.

=> Start Date and End Date columns show January 30.

Ticket [link](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project.task/6145880)
opw-6145880

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#271573
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262282

Login uniqueness is enforced by a `UNIQUE (login)` constraint that Postgres compares byte for byte, so signing up with foo@example.com and then Foo@example.com produces two separate accounts pointing at the same real mailbox.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/66a6c16551041543b5addfe846f15e769b4e9afe/odoo/addons/base/models/res_users.py#L274

Even if the DB constraint did catch an exact-case duplicate and `_signup_create_user` re-raised it as a `SignupError`, the controller's friendly "already registered" branch only triggers when the duplicate lookup finds a row, and that lookup goes through `_get_login_domain` with an exact `=` operator. Case variants would fall into the generic "Could not create a new account" branch instead.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/66a6c16551041543b5addfe846f15e769b4e9afe/addons/auth_signup/controllers/main.py#L68-L75
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/66a6c16551041543b5addfe846f15e769b4e9afe/odoo/addons/base/models/res_users.py#L749-L750

`_signup_create_user` now refuses creation when a user with the same email already exists, applying to both b2c free signup and token-based invitations. It raises `UserError` directly so the controller's `except UserError` surfaces the message without a redundant lookup. The check uses `_get_email_domain`, whose base implementation is switched from `=` to `=ilike` over a value escaped via `tools.escape_psql` so `%` and `_` are matched literally rather than as wildcards. Its only existing caller is `reset_password`, which already wants case-insensitive matching.

Steps to reproduce:
1. In Settings, set Customer Account to "Free sign up" and save.
2. Log out, then on the login page click "Don't have an account?".
3. Register with foo@example.com.
4. Log out again and click "Don't have an account?".
5. Register with Foo@example.com.

=> Two distinct user accounts are created for the same mailbox.

opw-6199441

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263864

### Steps to reproduce:

- Have a company with a branch say "company1" and "branch"
- Create two products: Final product (FP), Component (Comp)
- Set the company_id of FP to "branch" and of Comp to "company1"
- Associate both products with a product category set to avco in company1 (the field is company dependant)
- Create a bom for FP with company_id set to "branch": 1 X Comp
- Impersonate a user whose only allowed and default is "branch"
- Create and confirm an MO for 1 unit of FP
- Set the qty_producing to 1 unit and validate
#### > Access Error: Access to unauthorized or invalid companies.

### Cause of the issue:

Validating the MO will, validate the component move and set its value: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f4d079cc5a9c47672cf1a6747bb073e8e74f7350/addons/stock_account/models/stock_move.py#L168-L173 But, in order to determine this value, it is necessary to determine its `property_cost_method`:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f4d079cc5a9c47672cf1a6747bb073e8e74f7350/addons/stock_account/models/product.py#L60-L69
Now, the issue is that the `product_template` of the component belongs to "company1" so that the user is unauthorized to read the valuation method of the product category for "company1".

opw-6216141

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#274108
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#272429

### Steps to reproduce:

- Have two companies: company1 and company2
- Create a producct P available in both company1 and company2
- with company1, create a kit bom for a product P
- with company2, create and confirm a sale order for 1 unit of P
- with company1, change the bom type of P from kit to manufature
#### > UserError: As long as there are some sale order lines that must be delivered/invoiced and are related to these bills of materials, you can not remove them.

### Cause of the issue:

Changing the bom type from a kit (phantom type) to a non kit will launch a call of the `_ensure_bom_is_free` in order to ensure data integrity if the kit bom was used by a relevant sale order line: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f4c76be062bec47b68ee42505d7d42fed31ac0f2/addons/sale_mrp/models/mrp_bom.py#L15-L18
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f4c76be062bec47b68ee42505d7d42fed31ac0f2/addons/sale_mrp/models/mrp_bom.py#L24-L42
However, this check does not take the company of the bom into account and in the present flow, the company of the bom is different from the company of the supposedly problematic sol.

opw-6290304

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#273839
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#271119

### Issue:
When creating a new Indian company, the `Half Up` cash rounding is reassigned to the new company instead of being duplicated
Previous Indian companies lose access to it, causing errors when opening invoices that reference the cash rounding if the user doesn't have access to that company

### Cause:
`cash_rounding_in_half_up` was defined as a `data` record with a fixed XML ID (`l10n_in.cash_rounding_in_half_up`) `_get_in_account_cash_rounding` referenced that XML ID directly and set `company_id` to the current company on each chart of accounts installation
This reassigned the single shared record to the new company instead of creating a new one

Moving the definition to the `@template` decorator without a module-prefixed XML ID lets the chart of accounts system create one record per company, as intended

### Steps to reproduce:
- Install `l10n_in` and switch to `IN Company`
- Check the Cash Rounding records grouped by company
- Create a new Indian company
- Enable both `IN Company` and the new company
- Check the Cash Rounding records grouped by company again

Before the fix, only the last created Indian company has the Cash Rounding record

opw-6318857

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#272866

**Issue**
The quantity displayed in the Unit Cost History report can be incorrect when the move UoM differs from the product UoM.

**Steps to reproduce**
- Create an AVCO product Comp tracked in tons with a unit price of 100.
- Create another product with a BoM consuming 100kg of Comp
- Create, confirm and produce a MO for that product
- Open the Unit Cost History for Comp
-> Quantity is incorrect (100 instead of 0.1). As a consequence, the computed added value displayed in the report is also incorrect (10000 instead of 10).

**Cause**
The quantity and added value fields come from the `stock.avco.report` model, which is defined by this SQL view:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/aef190dbff365f4fe5d92a2c41c35f92b66ce5fd/addons/stock_account/report/stock_avco_audit_report.py#L36-L39 The view uses the `quantity` field of `stock.move`: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/aef190dbff365f4fe5d92a2c41c35f92b66ce5fd/addons/stock_account/report/stock_avco_audit_report.py#L48 
without converting it in the right uom

opw-6271229

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#269846

Since 17.0, `webp` images can be uploaded at any resolution, whereas every other format is refused above IMAGE_MAX_RESOLUTION (50 Mpx) when the attachment is created on the server.

Root cause
===========
`ImageProcess` grouped webp together with empty sources and SVG and set `self.image = False`, returning before the `verify_resolution` check. As a result the resolution limit enforced for `png/jpeg/...` was never applied to `webp`.

Fix
===
Split `webp` out of the skip branch: it is still not processed as before, but its resolution is now read from the RIFF header with `get_webp_size()` and checked against `IMAGE_MAX_RESOLUTION`, so oversized webp images are refused on upload like any other format.

Steps to reproduce
===================
1. Edit any page with the website editor
2. Upload a `webp` image larger than 50 Mpx (e.g. 8000x8000)

=> The image is accepted, while a `png/jpeg` of the same size is refused

task-4134430

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#273570
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#273010

**Issue**
Selling a kit with dropshipping in AVCO/FIFO could wrongly set the standard_price of the component product to 0 after validating the dropship transfer.

**Steps to reproduce**
- Create a kit and component product
- Activate MTO and dropship route for the kit
- Activate dropship route for the component
- Add a vendor for the component (ex: 100 dollars)
- Set component to AVCO valuation
- Create and confirm a sale order
- Confirm the associate purchase order and the dropship transfer
- Go to the product -> The standard price is still 0 instead of being updated from the supplier price.

**Cause**
While confirming the PO, a picking is created:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/43f5ceadbc1f7df9898c327bf65bffdbe9860c1c/addons/purchase_stock/models/purchase_order.py#L371 With its associated moves:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/43f5ceadbc1f7df9898c327bf65bffdbe9860c1c/addons/purchase_stock/models/purchase_order.py#L383 During the move preparation, the `cost_share` is not propagated on the generated move values, so it remains equal to 0.

The `cost_share` is computed while exploding the kit BOM: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/43f5ceadbc1f7df9898c327bf65bffdbe9860c1c/addons/purchase_mrp/models/purchase.py#L94 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/43f5ceadbc1f7df9898c327bf65bffdbe9860c1c/addons/mrp/models/mrp_bom.py#L463 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/43f5ceadbc1f7df9898c327bf65bffdbe9860c1c/addons/purchase_mrp/models/mrp_bom.py#L62 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/43f5ceadbc1f7df9898c327bf65bffdbe9860c1c/addons/purchase_mrp/models/mrp_bom.py#L70

However, only the `bom_line_id` is propagated on the move values: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/43f5ceadbc1f7df9898c327bf65bffdbe9860c1c/addons/purchase_mrp/models/purchase.py#L94-L99

Later, while validating the dropship transfer:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/43f5ceadbc1f7df9898c327bf65bffdbe9860c1c/addons/stock_account/models/stock_move.py#L177 the move value is used to recompute the standard price: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/43f5ceadbc1f7df9898c327bf65bffdbe9860c1c/addons/stock_account/models/product.py#L651 
While `move.value` is not zero, `move._get_value` is:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/cac987867b083355d3366228d0c551b34f366d92/addons/stock_account/models/product.py#L485-L487
since it depends on the move `cost_share`:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/43f5ceadbc1f7df9898c327bf65bffdbe9860c1c/addons/purchase_mrp/models/stock_move.py#L25

Since the move `cost_share` is 0, the AVCO/FIFO recomputation uses an incorrect value and the component standard price is not updated.

**Solution**
No need to use `cost_share` to compute the value if the price_unit is already given for the component

opw-6176571

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264341

When Google sends a recurrence with UNTIL in UTC (UNTIL=...Z), users in timezones behind UTC can get one extra occurrence on the boundary day. Google's UNTIL represents the last allowed start in UTC, but that UTC date fell into the previous local day. Because Odoo was comparing event start times as naive local datetimes against a cutoff derived from the wrong date, the boundary occurrence passed the check and was created.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Set the user's timezone to a UTC-negative offset (e.g. America/Argentina/Buenos_Aires, UTC-3).
2. In Google Calendar, create a weekly recurring event (e.g. every Thursday at 12:00 local).
3. Edit the series with "This and following events" so the old series ends with UNTIL set to 02:59:59 UTC of the next day (= 23:59:59 local of the last valid occurrence day).
4. Sync with Odoo -> an extra event is created on the day after the last valid Thursday, which does not exist in Google Calendar.

opw-6024835

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#273915
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265297

When a live chat channel has no operators configured and the chatbot
script ends with a Forward to operator step, triggering that step
causes a traceback.

Steps to reproduce the error:
- Install ``im_livechat`` module with demo data
- Go to Live Chat > Configuration > Chatbots > Create a new chatbot >
  Add script > Step Type: Question > Set answers > Save >
  Add script > Step Type: Forward to operator >
  Only If: Set one of the above answers > Save
- Go to Live chat > Channel > Click the configure channel on YourWebsite.com > Remove the operators > Save
- Go to the chatbot > test > select the configured answer

Traceback:
```py
StopIteration
```

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/8791cdcd89ea3cb56b1fac63b3e2ffbd2956a912/addons/im_livechat/controllers/chatbot.py#L65-L70
When the chatbot script reaches a Forward to operator step while no operator
is configured in the live chat channel, no chatbot message is created.
As a result, the generator iterates over an empty iterator, and
the ``next()`` call raises a ``StopIteration`` exception, causing a traceback
during the conversation.

sentry-7435424405

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#274384
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#261726

Issue before this commit:
=========================
When splitting a done picking that contains at least one stock move whose
done quantity is less than the demanded quantity (product_uom_qty),
an expected singleton traceback occurs.

Steps to Reproduce:
=========================
- Install the stock module with demo data.
- Create a delivery picking for any product with a demand of 5.
- Set the done quantity to 2.
- Validate the picking without creating a backorder.
- Try to split the validated/done picking.
- An expected singleton traceback is raised.

Cause of the issue:
=========================
Previously, attempting to split a done picking simply returned because 
there was nothing left to split.

After this [PR](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/224952), the split action calls **message_post()** to post a note on the original picking 
of the generated backorder. However, no backorder is created when splitting a done picking
since there is no remaining quantity to split. As a result, message_post() is called on 
an empty recordset, leading to an expected singleton traceback.

With This Commit:
=========================
Splitting a done picking has no functional purpose, as there is nothing left to split.
In this case, simply return without performing any action. This preserves the 
previous behaviour and prevents the traceback.

Before this commit, joining a call in a mobile browser (Chrome, Safari, ...) would crop the bottom call controls (mic, camera, hang-up, ...) behind the browser's chrome (URL bar / bottom nav).

On mobile, entering the meeting uses the fullscreen overlay with `keepBrowserHeader: true`, so no native fullscreen is requested and the browser UI stays visible. The overlay was sized with the Bootstrap `vh-100` class (`height: 100vh`), and `100vh` resolves to the *large* viewport (as if the URL bar were hidden). Combined with `fixed-top`, the overlay extended past the visible area and pushed the control row off screen.

This commit sizes the overlay with `100dvh` (dynamic viewport height) instead, which tracks the currently visible viewport and shrinks while the URL bar is shown, keeping the controls on screen. This is a no-op in native/desktop fullscreen where `dvh == vh`, and matches the `dvh` usage already present in the codebase (welcome page, bottom sheet).

task-6353266


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

Currently, when the user manually creates an operation for inventory adjustment and then creates a picking for that operation, opening the move line for a product does not navigate to the corresponding picking. Instead, it opens a new scrap form.

## Steps to replicate:
- Install Inventory
- Go to settings and Enable 'Storage Locations'
- Create a product named 'Pen' with an on-hand quantity of 10.
- Navigate to Inventory > Configurations > Locations
- Create a new location:
  - Name: Office Supplies Consumption'
  - Location Type: Inventory Loss
- Go to Configurations > Operation types > Create new operation type:
   - Name: Transfer to Office Consumption
   - Type of operation: Delivery
   - Sequence prefix: TOC
   - Source Location: 'WH/Stock'
   - Destination Location: Office Supplies Consumption
- Create and validate a picking for 1 Pen using the operation type 'Transfer to Office Consumption'.
- Open the 'Pen' product form. > In/Out smartbutton
- Open the move line corresponding to the transfer created.

## Observed behavior:
Instead of redirecting the user to the picking created for the office supply consumption operation, the system opens a new stock scrap form view.

## Root cause:
This issue occurs when a user clicks the move line reference associated with a picking. In that case, `action_open_reference` is invoked on the stock move line, which subsequently calls the method with the same name on the related stock move at [1].

As a result, the scrap view is returned at [2]. This happens because the move is not marked as is_inventory, since the operation neither relocates quants nor manually adjusts on-hand quantities and the destination location still uses the Inventory Loss / Inventory usage type.

Since the move is not linked to any scrap record, its `scrap_id` is empty. Consequently, the method returns an empty scrap form, which causes the issue.

**Why did this not occur in earlier versions?**
Prior to this [commit](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/53181c7ac4d940d889370da61d39150560cdb0d8 ), the `scrap_location` field existed. After its removal, the logic was changed to rely on locations of type Inventory Loss, effectively causing all inventory loss locations to be treated as scrap locations.

Before this change, the condition depended on the scrapped boolean [3], which was only set for actual scrap locations. Because not all inventory loss locations were considered scrap locations, the system would fall back to opening the picking form as the reference, avoiding this issue.

**Why does the issue not occur in 19.2+?**
The issue no longer occurs in 19.2+ because the `stock.scrap` model was removed and the scrap-related logic was moved to stock.move. As part of this [commit](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/1c7d80a10b5d7db1c4163166bf52b3f3c77044ba ), the code path that returned the stock scrap view was removed. The system now falls back to the picking view instead, as shown at [4].
[1]-
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/65937b5cdc6c638a9e9ff7085cbab1567ca24142/addons/stock/models/stock_move_line.py#L1030 
[2]-
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/65937b5cdc6c638a9e9ff7085cbab1567ca24142/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L2584-L2594
[3]-
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/24f829cd8de3d97d6ed414e179f9903e3f8e7b70/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L2542-L2552 
[4]-
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/90769e7f74b4d8e86e5bbc2e4403ed4cd0c09ae6/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L2609-L2627

## Solution:
Tighten the condition for inventory loss operations so that the scrap view is only returned when the move is actually linked to a scrap record (`scrap_id`). Otherwise, the method should fall back to opening the source picking, matching the behavior of both earlier and later versions.

This distinction is important because an inventory loss location is not necessarily used for scrapping. As demonstrated in the reproduction steps, such locations can also be used to track other forms of inventory loss, such as distributing office supplies to employees. Creating dedicated inventory loss locations allows users to categorize and account for different types of losses more accurately.

In these cases, opening the picking that generated the inventory loss provides a more meaningful reference to the user than displaying a new, empty scrap form.

opw-6270679

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#270563

`_l10n_tr_nilvera_add_pdf_to_invoice` writes the response from `client.request('GET', '.../pdf')` directly into `ir.attachment.raw`. The Nilvera client sets `Accept: application/json` on the session and calls `response.json()` by default, so the returned value is a Python `str` holding the base64-encoded PDF body, not raw binary bytes.

The previous code wrote to the base64-aware `datas` field, which auto-decoded its input. An earlier fix switched to `raw` to work around a `binascii.Error` from Python 3.14's stricter base64 validation in the `datas` auto-decode path. That switch silently changed what ends up on disk (`datas` decodes its input, `raw` does not)

Storing that string in the binary `raw` field encodes it as UTF-8, so the file on disk ends up as the literal ASCII of the base64 text. The attachment is served as `application/pdf` but the browser receives base64 ASCII and cannot preview or download the PDF.

Call `b64decode(response)` before storing so the attachment contains the actual PDF bytes.

OPW-6302803

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

Current behavior before PR:

Desired behavior after PR is merged:




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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#273791
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#270759

Steps to reproduce:
1. Install l10n_be and switch to BE company
2. Upload the XML document (found in ticket chatter) into the Accounting application as a Credit Note.

Issue:
 - The line is imported as a negative value which is corrected with a rounding line.
 - The 6% tax rate is applied to the negative invoice line, resulting in a negative tax amount being deducted from the total (e.g., 449.32 + (-26.96) = 422.36) instead of being added (449.32 + 26.96 = 476.28)

Expected behavior:
price_unit, quantity and the related tax amounts should all be
positive, matching a normal in_refund/out_refund line.

Why this happens:
 - In `_import_ubl_invoice_line_add_price_unit_quantity_discount`,
  `BaseQuantity` was multiplied by file_document_sign, unlike
  `PriceAmount` from the same node which is left untouched.
  This flips price_quantity to -1, which later flips price_unit to
  negative when `price_unit = price_subtotal / price_quantity`.

opw-6310442

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#271148

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install Accounting and l10n_ar_withholding
- Switch to an Argentinian company (e.g. (AR) Responsable Inscripto)

- Create a 0% Payment Withholding tax:
  * Tax Type: Customer Payment Withholding
  * Amount: 0.00 %
  * Add an account for the tax distribution lines

- Create an invoice with a tax
- Confirm the invoice
- Pay the invoice:
  * Withholdings:
       - Add a line with the created 0% Payment Withholding tax
       - Add a line with another Payment Withholding tax
- Create Payment
- Go to the payment

**Issue 1:**
When clicking on the first withholding line, a JS error is raised due to a missing index (i.e. currency_id).

**Cause 1:**
One of the fields has an aggregate sum function applied on it (i.e. amount_currency).
As it is a monetary field, the corresponding currency field is required in the view.

**Issue 2:**
When resetting the payment to draft, the withholding line with the 0% tax is deleted.
As the withholding table is not editable, it is not possible to add the line again.

**Cause 2:**
When the payment is reset to draft, the state of the associated journal entry is also set to draft and a "_sync_dynamic_lines" is triggered, which remove tax lines having a zero amount during the process.

**Solution 2:**
Keep all the lines with a Customer Payment Withholding tax as it is not possible to add a withholding line in the payment afterwards.

opw-6298058




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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#271555

Define the correct hours in the leaves if the calendar has defined dates (`date_from` and `date_to`)

Use case example:
- Create a calendar and define on Friday (Morning: from 08:00 to 13.00, Afternoon: from 19:00 to 21:00) with date_to=2025-01-01.
- Define another specific Friday (Morning: from 09:00 to 14.00, Afternoon: from 17:00 to 20:00) in the same calendar with date_from=2025-01-01.
- Create an employee and define the calendar created for him/her.
- Create a leaves for the employee and select a Friday (2025-05-02).
- The start hour of the leave must be 2025-05-02 09:00:00
- The end hour of the leave must be 2025-05-02 20:00:00

![ejemplo-1](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/e7f6bcf9-73f2-4412-840c-cbe42e5e9200)
![ejemplo-2](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/211c07c8-c068-4137-b032-e26f9567e8b3)

Please @pedrobaeza can you review it?

@Tecnativa TT56218


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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#255398
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#208378

**Problem:**
When scheduling a message using an email template with custom attachments, those attachments will not have their `res_model` and `res_id` updated to relate to the scheduled message record. This can lead to access errors.

**Cause:**
When composing a message using an email template with attachments, those attachments are created with their `res_model` and `res_id` values corresponding to the mail composer record. However, when scheduling a message, only attachments with no `res_id` value (or a value of 0) are updated to correspond to the scheduled message record. https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/77b180e8251fb8019e0034e1c2f485fd2c34ea4e/addons/mail/wizard/mail_compose_message.py#L1198-L1201
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/30ca89b9e0d3c43d019167ec2de816c263f4bb92/addons/mail/models/mail_scheduled_message.py#L86

**Purpose:**
Modify the `mail.scheduled.message` override of `create` to not require an attachment have no `res_id` value to be properly updated.

**Steps to Reproduce in Runbot:**
1. Add an attachment to an email template.
2. Open a mail composer using that email template, then schedule the message for later.
3. Attempt to view the scheduled message with a different user.

More specific example flow:
1. Add an attachment to the Sales: Send Quotation email template.
2. Create a Quotation and send it with the Send by Email button, selecting Send Later instead of Send.
3. Attempt to view the Quotation with a different user.

opw-6293587

**Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:**

When rendering floating-point numbers with high decimal accuracy (e.g., UoM quantities set to 10 decimals), the UI can occasionally display a trailing parasitic digit (such as 53000.0000000002 instead of 53000.0000000000).

This commit resolves the issue by backporting the formatting logic from master. The `maxDecDigits` calculation is moved outside the conditionals so it unconditionally caps precision for all numbers. Furthermore, the global significant digit ceiling is reduced from 15 to 14.

This 14-digit ceiling reserves a 1-digit buffer, allowing the newly introduced `formatFixedDecimals` utility to safely run `roundDecimals` on the float. This mathematically sanitizes the trailing corrupted digit before it is ever converted to a string.

opw-6313540

**Current behavior before PR:**
- With Product UoM set to 10 Decimal Accuracy, floats such as 53000 are displayed with a corrupted digit (e.g. 53000.0000000002)

**Desired behavior after PR is merged:**
- With Product UoM set to 10 Decimal Accuracy, floats such as 53000 are displayed without corrupted digits (e.g. 53000.000000000)

This PR is essentially a backport of https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/07da917f6e3319b4acde1029e77f69f1aba314b8 and https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/c4e7ba8d8fdfd7b0c442cf834f562ef8cedf019b for numbers.js

### Steps to Reproduce
1. Create SO with one line. Unit price $100 + 15% tax
2. Create a down payment for $100 and confirm
3. Create a down payment for the remaining $15 and confirm
4. Create an invoice for the original SO, the total is 0.00
5. Download the PDF and notice that the total is -0.00

### Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses: 
**Issue:** There should not be a negative sign on the invoice PDF. Because of rounding to accommodate the limitations of binary memory, there is a negligible negative remainder sometimes, which gets shown as -0.00.

**Solution:** Update the _compute_tax_totals method to check if the calculated totals and subtotals evaluate to zero using the currency's precision (is_zero()). If a value evaluates to zero, we explicitly force the amount to 0.0 and reformat it using formatLang, ensuring the PDF displays a clean 0.00

### Current behavior before PR:
Some cases cause there to be a negative zero on the invoice PDF.

### Desired behavior after PR:
No negative zeroes on the invoice PDF.

opw-6298712

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

The Thread component mirrors `thread.isLoaded` into the `state.mountedAndLoaded` flag that gates, in the template, whether the real messages are rendered. That mirroring effect both read `mountedAndLoaded` as one of its dependencies and wrote it.

`useEffect` records its dependency array before running the body, so right after the effect sets `mountedAndLoaded` to true the recorded dependencies still hold the pre-write `[isLoaded=true, mountedAndLoaded=false]` pair; that update only settles on a later, microtask-deferred patch. When a second reload runs `reset()` in that window it drives `mountedAndLoaded` back to false while `isLoaded` stays true, and the settling patch then computes the very `[true, false]` pair already recorded. The effect never re-runs, so `mountedAndLoaded` is stranded at false and no message is rendered.

Depend on a monotonic `resetCount` instead. Reading it in the effect dependency array subscribes the render to it (OWL subscribes a `useState` proxy's render callback on every read, wherever it happens), so a `reset()` bump re-renders and re-runs the mirror to re-sync `mountedAndLoaded` with `isLoaded`. Bump it only when `isLoaded`: while loading, `applyScroll` resets on every patch, so an unconditional bump would spin the render loop; the guard re-arms only in the case that heals. `reset()` still clears `mountedAndLoaded` (the false dip is needed for the reload scroll handshake), so behaviour is otherwise unchanged.

The race is not deterministically reproducible with this version's test tooling, which cannot advance the render loop a single frame, so no test is added here; the fix is covered by tests on later versions.

https://runbot.odoo.com/odoo/error/940032