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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#274992
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#274059

Steps to Reproduce
---
- Create a normal parent task with one normal sub-task and one template sub-task.
- Open the parent task form view and observe the Sub-tasks stat button count and
notebook tab, check the subtask view as well.
- Create a template parent task with one normal sub-task and one template sub-task,
then repeat the same checks.

Issue
---
- Task templates are handled like regular subtasks in the subtask count, notebook, and
subtask view, without taking the parent task type into account.

Current Behaviour
---
- For a normal parent task, both the normal sub-task and the template sub-task are
counted and shown in the opened subtask view and notebook.
- For a template parent task, the same filtering is applied, even though template subtasks
should remain accessible in that context.

Expected Behaviour
---
- For a normal parent task, only real sub-tasks should be counted and shown in the subtask
view and notebook, and on the project kanban card.
- For a template parent task, template subtasks should remain available in the subtask
view and notebook according to the parent template context.
- In the project kanban card, tasks must not be counted when their parent task is a template,
 even if the child task itself is not a template.

Fix
---
- Apply template-aware filtering to subtask counting,project kanban task count and subtask view
 behavior, depending on whether the parent task is a normal task or a template task.

task-5966684

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#252403

The following use case has been observed:

0. Customer start a payment from /shop/payment.
1. We received the webhook that notifies that the payment succeeded.
2. The payment post-processing cron start (it gather all the transactions that need to be processed, including the customer new transaction)
3. Meanwhile, the customer is redirected back by the payment provider to Odoo, which then redirect to /payment/status and start the payment post-processing for that specific transaction
4. The customer initiated payment processing finishes, he is redirected back to /my/orders/... page.
5. The payment post-processing cron finally start processing the same customer transaction and process it (a second time).

In that case, as the transactions to be post-processed backlog was quite high, there is consequent time between the time we gather all the TXs to post-process and actually process the customer transaction.

Also we don't end up with a `SerializationError` as the cron do commit after each transaction post-processing.

This commit force invalidate individual transaction cache values and recheck if it effectively still need to be post-processed before doing it.

opw-6332192

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#274725
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#274010

Steps to reproduce:
- Create one user linked to two companies.
- Create one employee per company for that user.
- Select one company and approve a time off for the employee.
- Open Tasks > Gantt and create a task during the approved time-off period the warning is shown and the Gantt cell is grayed out.
- Select both companies and create a task during the same time-off period in Tasks > Gantt.

Issue:
When multiple companies are selected, the time-off warning is still displayed but the corresponding Gantt cells are no longer grayed out, leading to an inconsistency between the warning logic and the Gantt rendering.

Cause:
In multi-company setups, a user can be linked to multiple resources. The Gantt unavailability logic assumed a one-to-one relationship between user and resource causing unavailability intervals from some resources to be overwritten.

Solution:
Aggregate unavailability intervals from all resources linked to the same user, limited to the selected companies, and merge them with the company calendar unavailability to ensure consistent Gantt gray rendering.
Related PR: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/57028

task-5089385

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#105288

[FIX] mrp_workorder_plm: avoid singleton traceback when matching BOM operations
**Issue**
Adding a step in a manufacturing order with two operations that are too similar
could lead to a traceback when proposing an improvement from the Shop Floor.

**Steps to reproduce**
- Install the Product Lifecycle Management app.
- Create a BOM for any product with two operations that:
	- Have the same name and work center
	- Have no variant
- Create and confirm a Manufacturing Order for that product.
- Open the Shop Floor view.
- Click the gear icon -> Update Instructions -> Improvement Suggestion -> Add a Step -> Propose a Change.
-> A traceback occurs

**Cause**
When adding a step:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/1c02615b73a2b4fb9f1ab91167a3c8d7c9ac824c/mrp_workorder_plm/models/mrp_workorder.py#L10
It tries to find the corresponding operation in the ECO's new BoM.
This relies on `_get_sync_values()`:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/1c02615b73a2b4fb9f1ab91167a3c8d7c9ac824c/mrp_plm/models/mrp_routing.py#L9-L13
Because two operations share the same name, work center, and no variant, both match the filter:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/1c02615b73a2b4fb9f1ab91167a3c8d7c9ac824c/mrp_workorder_plm/models/mrp_workorder.py#L39
This results in a singleton error when accessing `operation.id`:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/1c02615b73a2b4fb9f1ab91167a3c8d7c9ac824c/mrp_workorder_plm/models/mrp_workorder.py#L42

opw-6241880

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119404