**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#274604
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#271555

…nding

When cash rounding is enabled with "Only for cash payment methods", an order partially paid in cash and completed with an online payment could neither request the correct online amount nor be marked as paid.

Steps to reproduce:
- Enable cash rounding (e.g. 0.05, HALF-UP) with "Only for cash payment methods"
- Create an order with a total of 15.28
- Add a cash payment of 10.00, then an online payment for the remainder

The frontend requests 5.28 for the online payment, but as soon as the order contained a cash payment the server rounded the whole order total: get_and_set_online_payments_data() returned an unpaid amount of 5.30 (15.30 - 10.00), so the validation failed with "Invalid online payments".

Even once the online payment of 5.28 was processed, the order remained stuck in draft with the money captured: _is_pos_order_paid() compared the paid amount (15.28) against the rounded total (15.30).

Only the part of the order actually settled in cash must be rounded: non-cash payments (card, online, ...) always pay their exact share.

- get_amount_unpaid() now returns the exact residual of the order when the rounding only applies to cash payment methods.
- _get_rounded_amount() now only rounds the amount not covered by non-cash payments, resolving its old TODO. Cash-only orders and orders where the cash payment settles the rounded remainder are unaffected.

opw-6314690

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275305

Steps to reproduce
-------------------

- Install sale_project, accountant and project_timesheet_forecast_sale modules;
- Activate analytic accounting in the settings;
- Add an outstanding account to the bank journal’s manual outgoing payment method;
- Create a new billable project;
- Open the top menu, add vendor bills and open it;
- Create a new bill from there, it should use the project’s analytic distribution;
- Confirm it and create a payment;
- Open the payment’s journal entry, it is using the analytic distribution too;

Why is it happening
--------------------

When opening a vendor bill from the project, the project_id is added to the account.move's context to use the correct analytic distribution when we create a  bill.

If we create a payment after accessing the bill from this route, the context is transfered to account.payment.register, and then to the payment's entry lines in the `_create_payments` method.

Due to the `_compute_analytic_distribution` method, the project's distribution is used on the payment's entry.

We propose to filter out payment lines in this compute method.

opw-6329475


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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275076

# How to reproduce
- Create a new product
- Add a reordering rule to that product with :
	- Trigger : Auto
	- Min : > Forecast
- Activate dev mode
- Go to Seetings > Technical > Automation > Scheduled Actions
- Find the "Procurement: run Scheduler" action & run it manually

# The issue
We get a traceback :
psycopg2.errors.SerializationFailure: could not serialize access due to concurrent update

# Cause
In Odoo, we use an isolation level of "REPEATABLE READ" for transactions :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/7c35e183d6cc33a6e5d20e5e97ffef79e03b49d4/odoo/sql_db.py#L373

Even with that isolation level psql can throw a `SerializationFailure` if a transaction
attempts to update a row that was modified by another transaction after the isolation
snapshot was taken.

### Example that will raise an error :

Session 1
```SQL
BEGIN ISOLATION LEVEL REPEATABLE READ;
UPDATE accounts SET balance = balance - 100 WHERE id = 1;
```

Session 2
```SQL
BEGIN ISOLATION LEVEL REPEATABLE READ;
UPDATE accounts SET balance = balance - 50 WHERE id = 1;
COMMIT;
```

Back to Session 1
```SQL
COMMIT;
```

When running our action, we do this :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/dff0835346f30fd1ef77260d94bcceeeab4d9051/addons/stock/models/stock_rule.py#L697-L703

Which correspond exactly to the first example :
We first update some records with their compute

Then `orderpoints.sudo()._procure_orderpoint_confirm(...)` creates a new
transaction, update some rows & commits :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/dff0835346f30fd1ef77260d94bcceeeab4d9051/addons/stock/models/stock_orderpoint.py#L716-L719
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/dff0835346f30fd1ef77260d94bcceeeab4d9051/addons/stock/models/stock_orderpoint.py#L781-L783

Finally, we commit the original transaction with `_commit_progress(1)`

# Proposed solution
Inverse the order of  `_commit_progress(1)` and
`orderpoints.sudo()._procure_orderpoint_confirm(...)` so we commit
the first transaction before starting the second one.

opw-6261675
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#268616

When opening a table that has no order, `setTable` recycles an existing empty floating order instead of creating a new one (to avoid leaving dangling blank orders behind). The filter only checked for the absence of a table, lines and finalized state, so it could grab any empty floating order, including one deliberately created for takeout or delivery.

Steps to reproduce:
- Open a restaurant POS with presets enabled (e.g. Dine in / Takeaway).
- Cashier A creates a new floating order for a phone customer: selects the Takeaway preset with a future time slot, but has not added any product yet.
- Meanwhile, cashier B opens an empty table from the floor screen.
- => The takeout order is assigned to the table and becomes a dine-in order, losing its takeout context.

Only recycle blank direct sale orders: skip orders that have a floating order name, a scheduled preset time or a preset different from the config default, as those were created on purpose. Tapping a table while on a blank dine-in scratch order still converts it as before.

opw-6041750

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262573

\* : website, web_editor, html_editor

Commit [1]:

Steps to reproduce: replacing image stuck issue when deleted
1. Go to Website > Edit.
2. Add any picture snippet (e.g., Text-Image).
3. Click the 'Replace' button and upload an image.
4. Open the media dialog again and delete the uploaded image.
5. Click the 'Discard' button.
6. Try to save the changes.

Issue:
- The website gets stuck in the same position and does not allow saving.
- In the Python terminal, a missing error warning appears because the image is deleted from both `ir.ui.view` and `ir.attachment`.

Expected behaviour:
- Saving should be allowed with a default image, that is similar to other images.

This commit catch the warning response and replaces the deleted image, allowing the website to save changes without getting stuck.

Commit [2]: resolve traceback when leaving edit mode via browser

Steps to reproduce:
1. Go to Website > Edit.
2. Open the snippet modal and select any snippet.
3. Press the 'Back' button in your browser.
4. A dialog will appear asking to discard changes; click 'OK'.
5. A traceback error occurs, and an empty space appears in the editor.

Issue:
- Previously, a commit addressed a similar scenario, but that time the browser had an event listener bind on hashchange.
- Now, that `hashchange` event of browser has been replaced with `popstate`, which triggers before the 'window' event listener.
- As a result, the editor is left in an unstable state, causing a traceback error.

Solution:
- This commit ensures the 'window' event executes before the browser event.
- It verifies if the editor is open and forces a `skipLoad`, preventing the `route_change` call in the browser.

task-4570164

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275150
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#199193

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:
When grouping datetime fields by hour, `read_group` formats the group display label using `hh:00 dd MMM`.

In Babel/LDML formatting, `hh` represents a 12-hour clock. Since the format does not include an AM/PM marker, afternoon/evening hours are displayed ambiguously in grouped views.

Current behavior before PR:
A datetime value in the afternoon is grouped under a 12-hour label without AM/PM.

For example, records around `13:50` are displayed under:

    01:00 20 Mar

Similarly, a datetime value around `16:20` may be grouped under:

    04:00 26 Mar

This is ambiguous because the group header does not indicate whether the hour is AM or PM.

Example screenshot showing records around 13:xx grouped under `01:00`:
<img width="310" height="240" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/8768f2e8-9aaa-436b-af9f-40055a6032e9" />


Desired behavior after PR is merged:
Hour-based datetime group labels should be unambiguous.

The hour grouping format now uses `HH:00 dd MMM`, so grouped datetime labels render using a 24-hour clock.

For example:

    13:00 20 Mar
    16:00 26 Mar

This fixes the datetime hour grouping label shown in grouped list views and other `read_group` consumers.

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275219
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#274724

Steps to reproduce:
- Create a promotion program (e.g. "10% discount on your order", reward_point_mode "per order") and restrict its rule to a specific product A; leave the minimum quantity at 0
- Open a PoS session and add any other product B to the order

Issue:
The discount was applied even though the order contained none of the rule's valid products.

Cause:
In `pointsForPrograms`, a rule was only gated on its quantity and amount thresholds (`totalProductQty < rule.minimum_qty`), never on the actual presence of a valid product in the order. Program templates (promotion, promo_code, next_order_coupons) create rules with minimum_qty = 0, so a product-restricted rule passed with zero matching items and, in "order" point mode, granted its points unconditionally. The same hole existed in `_canGenerateRewards` for scanned coupon programs, where rules act as conditions.

The backend does not have this issue: `_program_check_compute_points` in sale_loyalty skips any rule whose valid products are not present in the order.

Fix:
Mirror the backend behavior in the PoS frontend: skip a product-restricted rule in `pointsForPrograms` when no (non-reward) order line matches its valid products, and make `_canGenerateRewards` return false in the same situation. Gift card and eWallet flows are unaffected since their "money"/"unit" point modes already gave 0 points when the trigger product was absent.

opw-6357241

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275073

When uploading a font file "FontName 123 Light.otf" the baseFontName needs to be quoted in the font-face CSS to be valid.

Single font files parsing for the shortestNamedFont now also correctly keeps the weight for the targetFonts.

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:
Uploaded fonts with spaces in the name are not working.

Current behavior before PR:
When uploading a font with a space in the filename like  "FontName 123 Light.otf" the css declaration in the attachement is wrong and not working:
```css
@font-face {
	font-family: FontName 123 Light;
	font-style: normal;
	font-weight: 400;
	src: url("/web/content/1057/FontName 123 Light.otf");
}@font-face {
	font-family: FontName 123 Light;
	font-style: normal;
	font-weight: 400;
	src: url("/web/content/1057/FontName 123 Light.otf");
}
```

Desired behavior after PR is merged:
The font name is now correctly quoted and the font attributes are no longer overwritten for the shortestNameFont:
```css
@font-face {
	font-family: "FontName 123 Light";
	font-style: normal;
	font-weight: 400;
	src: url("/web/content/1057/FontName 123 Light.otf");
}@font-face {
	font-family: "FontName 123 Light";
	font-style: normal;
	font-weight: 300;
	src: url("/web/content/1057/FontName 123 Light.otf");
}
```

Info @wt-io-it

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#273534
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#268842

When an orderpoint fails during a portal user's transaction (e.g., eCommerce checkout), the system catches the `Procurement Exception` and logs a warning activity on the product template. The exception handler uses `.sudo().activity_schedule()`, which bypasses the write access restriction but leaves `env.uid` as the portal user.

Therefore, the restricted portal user permanently becomes the `create_uid` (Author) of the activity.

System exception activities should always be authored by the system (OdooBot), never by a portal or public user. This context leak corrupts the activity metadata by injecting an external user ID into internal backend logs. Chain `.with_user(SUPERUSER_ID)` to the `.sudo()` call in `stock_orderpoint.py` when scheduling the exception activity.

This ensures the environment context is stable and the activity is authored by OdooBot, which transcends multi-company record rules.

Steps to Reproduce on Runbot/Fresh Database on version 17.0:
1. Enable Multi-Company with Company A and Company B. Set Company B as the active company for the website.
2. Restrict the main Admin (Runbot) user strictly to Company A.
3. Create a Shared Product (Company field left blank).
4. Set a Reordering Rule (Orderpoint) for the product that is guaranteed to fail routing.
5. Navigate to the frontend website and sign up as a new user (this creates a Portal User in Company B).
6. As the newly signed-up Portal User, complete an eCommerce checkout for the shared product.
7. The checkout succeeds, but the backend triggers the orderpoint failure and logs the exception activity on the product template.
8. Check the chatter for this product: the `create_uid` is incorrectly set to the Portal User instead of OdooBot (1).
9. (In 19.0 Upgrade) Log in as the Admin user (set strictly to view Company A), navigate to the product, and the AccessError for reading will appear due to this leaked id.

[opw-6253978](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/my-support-tasks/6253978?debug=assets)


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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275140
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#269395

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install the `l10n_it_edi` module and switch to an IT Company.
- Create and confirm an invoice for a non-Italian customer.
- Send the invoice, making sure that only `by Email` is enabled.
- Attempt to send the invoice again.

**Issue:**
- In `18.0`, the XML file is not generated when re-sending an invoice that 
was previously sent only by email.

- Starting from `19.0`, attempting to `Send to Tax Agency` raises an error:
`UnboundLocalError: cannot access local variable 'attachment_name' where it is not associated with a value`

**Root cause:**
At [1], `_get_alerts` method does not check whether the invoice was previously 
sent only by email. As a result, the warning banner is not displayed, and 
allows the user to `Send to Tax Agency`.

**Fix:**
Restore the expected behavior by preventing `Send to Tax Agency` when 
the invoice was previously sent only by email. Instead, display the 
appropriate warning message instructing the user to delete the 
PDF attachment before sending to the Tax Agency, matching the 
behavior in `17.0` (confirmed with PO).

[1]:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/c0d8d36481e106f0209521bbb127cb3b1ad1059a/addons/l10n_it_edi/models/account_move_send.py#L27-L33

opw-6293519

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275498
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#269547