**Issue:**
Clicking Send By Email on a payslip opens the hr.payslip.send.mail wizard. Its action_send() always logs "The payslip has been re-send to the employee." in the payslip chatter, even when the payslip is being sent for the first time. The log call also runs inside the loop over the employees and goes through all the payslips of the wizard on each pass, so when the wizard sends payslips of several employees every payslip gets the same note once per employee. This started with the rework of the wizard in
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/39e0488a7e076ee648b47cc3d1cad41cadfd692e

**Fix:**
The wizard cannot tell a first send from a resend. There is no field on the payslip that keeps track of a previous send, and the chatter cannot be used for that either because the mail sent automatically on validation can be deleted after sending. The fix changes the log in action_send() to say the payslip has been sent by email, which is true in both cases, and moves it out of the employee loop so each payslip gets exactly one note.

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. In Payroll > Configuration > Settings, set "Send payslips to employees" to When Paid and save
2. In Payroll > Payslips, create an off-cycle payslip for an employee, click Compute, then Validate
3. Go back to the settings and set "Send payslips to employees" to When Confirmed
4. On the payslip, click Pay, then Mark as Paid
5. Click Print so the payslip document is generated
6. Click Send By Email and send the mail
7. Check the payslip chatter

=> The chatter shows "The payslip has been re-send to the employee." while the payslip was never sent before

Ticket [link](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project.task/6324204)
opw-6324204

`_add_manual_models` builds Python model classes for custom ("manual") `ir.model` records with a raw `SELECT *` on the `ir_model` table, then hands each row to `_instanciate_attrs`, which reads a fixed list of expected columns (`model`, `name`, `abstract`, `transient`, `order`, `fold_name`, `info`) via dict subscription (`model_data['xxx']`).

This assumes every one of these fields is always backed by a real database column. That assumption breaks whenever a field originally declared as stored on `ir.model` gets redeclared as non-stored (`store=False`) by another module inheriting the same model: Odoo correctly drops the now-unneeded column during that module's `_auto_init()`, but any code still doing `SELECT *` on the table no longer gets that key in the result row, and the subscript access raises a bare `KeyError`. This aborts the *entire* registry load, for every model in the database, not just the one whose field changed -- because `_add_manual_models` runs once per registry load and any database with at least one manual/custom model exercises it.

This is exactly the scenario introduced by 267bec440d56 ("[IMP] base: add IrModel.abstract field"): it added a new, plain stored `abstract` field on `ir.model`. `web_studio` has independently defined its own `abstract` field on `ir.model` since 2016 (ac1129f6577), as a computed, `store=False` field. Once both are loaded together, Odoo's field- merging logic settles on the `store=False` definition, so `_auto_init()` drops the `abstract` column -- and any database that also has at least one manual model (built through Studio, or via a module that dynamically generates SQL-view-backed models) then fails to boot its registry at all:

    File ".../odoo/orm/model_classes.py", line 554, in _add_manual_models
        attrs = env['ir.model']._instanciate_attrs(model_data)
    File ".../odoo/addons/base/models/ir_model.py", line 487, in _instanciate_attrs
        '_abstract': bool(model_data['abstract']),
    KeyError: 'abstract'

Fix `_instanciate_attrs` to fall back to a sane default instead of assuming the column exists. This doesn't just patch the `base`/ `web_studio` collision -- it hardens `_add_manual_models` against any future field made non-stored by an inheriting module, which is otherwise a silent, whole-database-breaking failure with no visible relation to whichever module actually changed the field.

A companion fix removing web_studio's now-redundant override (the actual root cause of the collision) is proposed separately.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Install `base` and `web_studio` together (or in either order) --
   Odoo's field-merging settles on web_studio's `store=False`
   definition, but leaves the `abstract` column physically in place;
   it is not dropped automatically.
2. Have at least one manual model in the database (`state='manual'`
   on `ir.model`, e.g. created through Settings > Technical > Models).
3. Actually remove the now-orphaned `abstract` column -- e.g. via the
   OCA `database_cleanup` module's column-purge wizard
   (`cleanup.purge.wizard.column`), which explicitly targets exactly
   this kind of column (computed + non-stored fields are excluded
   from its "keep" list, so `abstract` gets flagged and dropped).
4. Restart Odoo / reload the registry: it fails to boot entirely with
   a KeyError on that field name, for every model, not just the one
   whose owning module changed.


Related: odoo/enterprise#123572



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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275092

**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

Problem:
When filtering lost leads and grouping them, the lost leads are not counted in the groups' totals.

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Go to CRM
2. Go to Reporting > Leads
3. Select List View
4. Before applying any grouping, check the total number of leads and
make sure there are some closed leads among the leads and that the
applied filter includes the inactive/lost leads
5. Apply any grouping
6. Check how the sum of the groups totals doesn't equal the leads total

Cause:
When reading a group, the domain from the applied filter gets optimized, meaning that the applied rules get simplified logically.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f4d079cc5a9c47672cf1a6747bb073e8e74f7350/addons/web/models/models.py#L421
When looking for all leads, we filter by both active and inactive leads, but the optimize method removes both of them since active=TRUE OR active=FALSE = TRUE always. When removed, no filtering on the active field is in the domain now, which leads to the search method returning only active leads (default behaviour of search method when the active field is not set in the domain).

opw-6302388

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#272390

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

In the bubble layout, the `name="company_address"` div was inside an unconstrained `<td>`, causing percentage-based widths set in `company_details` (e.g. `width: 25%` on a image) to resolve against the full table cell width, resulting in oversized content compared to other layouts.
**Without fix:**

<img width="1127" height="411" alt="withoutfix" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/244c3407-1dbb-4b83-95d9-ebaba2b2b13c" />

For e.g, The folder layout wraps the same block in a `w-50` div, so percentage widths resolve against ~half the page width.

<img width="1111" height="410" alt="folderexp" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/ee72712a-94da-483c-9a8e-cb3a850dac8e" />

Added `w-50 ms-auto` to the `name="company_address"` div in the bubble layout to align its sizing context with the other layouts, ensuring consistent rendering of user-defined styles in `company_details` across both layouts.

**With fix:**

<img width="1119" height="413" alt="wfix" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/6b1caf24-3a8e-450f-865e-cce2b9788fe9" />



Commit which made the bubble layout in table: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/8eb61a245cd3b650e309fdb55d24654c34d785cd

opw-6287230



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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275228
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#270725

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

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

#### Issue:
When a credit note is renamed so that it sorts before the related invoices,
the lot assigned on invoice previews can become incorrect. Already posted
invoices can appear to consume the first lot again.

Example:
A sale order is delivered in 2 batches: 10 units from SN01, then 10 units
from SN02. Invoice 1 correctly shows SN01 and Invoice 2 correctly shows
SN02. If Invoice 1 is refunded, re-invoiced, and the credit note is then
renamed so it sorts before the invoices, Invoice 2 can incorrectly switch
back to SN01.

#### Steps to reproduce:
- Enable "Display Lots & Serial Numbers on Invoices".
- Create a sale order for 20 units of a tracked product.
- Deliver 10 units from the first lot/serial number and 10 units from a second one in a backorder.
- Create and post 2 invoices, one for each delivery.
- Create and post a credit note for the first invoice.
- Create and post a new invoice for 10 units.
- Reset the credit note to draft, rename it so that it sorts before the invoices, then repost it.
- Check the lot previews on the invoices.

#### Root Cause:
_get_invoiced_lot_values() orders invoice lines with move_name, which is
mutable, then computes the previously invoiced quantities from that order.
When a refund is renamed so it sorts before the invoices, the set of
"previous" invoice lines changes. On top of that, reversed invoices are
filtered out too broadly, even when their reversing move should not yet
impact the current invoice chronology.

#### Fix:
Order invoice lines with immutable move ids instead of move_name, and only
ignore reversed invoices once their reversing move is also before the
current invoice in the effective chronology. This keeps posted invoices
stable while preserving the re-invoice behavior.

opw-6110232
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264776

When computing taxes for the order, we group the base lines based on a grouping key. One of the components of this key is `is_refund`, and reward lines where considered as refund lines, which caused them to be grouped separately. This caused a discrepency between the tax amount computed in the frontend and the one computed in the backend.

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
* Change the rounding method to globally
* Create a 21% tax not included in price
* Create a product with a price of 76.01 and the tax created above
* Create a loyalty program with a 10% discount
* Create a POS order with the product above and apply the loyalty program
* Validate the order and generate the invoice
> Observation: The invoice states that 0.01$ is still due

Why the fix:
------------
In `round_tax_details_tax_amounts`, we try to detect any delta with the expeced tax amount. To do that we group the base lines based on a grouping key. The grouping key `is_refund` was incorrectly set to `true` for reward lines, which caused them to not be grouped. The delta was then not detected and tax amounts were not adjusted. We now make sure not to consider reward lines as refund.

opw-6052112

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275145
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#271577

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

Problem:
When creating a product from an invoice form view, the list price set on the product is not saved on the product template. After creating the product, when checking the product from the products list, the set list price is not shown.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Go to Accounting > Customers > Invoices
2. Create a new invoice
3. Create and edit a new product from the invoice line and set a new list price for the new product
4. Go to Sales > Products and open the created product
5. Check the list price of the product
6. Notice how the set list price is not shown on the product form view

Cause:
Product variants show lst_price while product templates show list_price on their form views. When creating a product from the invoice line, the shown form is for the product variant. When setting the list price on
the product variant form (lst_price in that case), the inverse method of llst_price, which sets the list_price in return, is called during the creation of the variant, after the template has been created and saved. As a result, editing the list price does not trigger a write on the already saved product template, causing the list_price of the variant to
be different than the list_price of the template.

opw-6272825

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#270614

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