In this commit:
------------------
- Maintain separate Fiskaly transaction flows for retail (short tx) and restaurant (long tx)
  orders as discussed with the Fiskaly team.
- `Initialize order transactions` with an empty payload when the `first product` is added.
- Start `receipt transactions` with an empty payload when the `first payment line` is added.
- For retail flows, no intermediate order updates are sent to Fiskaly before finalization.
- For restaurant flows, create additional transaction updates during kitchen synchronization.
  Ensure already synchronized products are not resent, and only newly added or updated
  quantities are included in the payload.
- `Finalize order and receipt transactions` with complete order lines and payment details
  when we validate the order.

task: 6208963

Reference:
<img width="1863" height="1285" alt="de_tss_flow" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/9140788e-7948-4a08-9f11-27197b22ca8b" />

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120529
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117526

### Steps to reproduce the issue:
1. Download Accounting
2. Go to Journal entries and create a new one
3. Click Toggle Studio button and go to the view to add the tax_base_amount field to the list of existing fields
4. Add 2 lines (example):
	1. account Product Sales with 1000 dollars credit and 15% tax under Tax column
	2. account Bank with 1000 dollars debit
5. Go to Dashboard > Bank > Click the 3 dots of one random bank matching line and click on Manage Models
6. Go to bank fees and add the 15% tax
7. Go back to bank reconciliation and create a new one of 2000 dollars with label bank fees (it will associate the tax automatically)
8. Go back to Journal Entries, group by Journal and search for the transaction of 2000 sollars for account Bank
9. Problem: see that the Base Amount for the 15% bank fees lines (251000 Tax Received account) is 0. Clicking on Reset to draft button the base amount column is automatically updated but this should happen automatically

### Cause of the issue:
This occurs because the _lines_prepare_tax_line method in account.bank.statement.line fails to map this field in its return dictionary.

### Reason to introduce the fix:
Currently, when applying a reconciliation model with taxes the generated tax lines incorrectly record a tax_base_amount of $0.00. Instead, it should be displayed and calculated.

opw-6220948

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123603
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#122139

Currently when a shopfloor operator modifies the operator, operator images are not visible and only place holder images are visible.

## Steps to produce:
- Install Manufacturing with demo data
- Login as Marc Demo
- Open shopfloor

## Observed Behavior:
Operator is unable to see their own profile picture and when you press the Edit Operator the operator is not able to see their as well as other operators images as well.

## Root cause:
This issue occurs because by default an operator's user does not have access right for `Employees` in Human Resources section as they are not an HR officer nor an administrator.

So when the user tries to access the image url that is meant for users with those access rights (HR officer / Administrator) at [1] and at [2].

The system returns a placeholder image instead of the employee image since the operator does not have access to hr employee model but does have access to hr employee public as per this [commit](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/c9ca3761464413327d2beb697553a3ccd7eef4d1)

[1]-
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/5fe2fb44f4c8a938390343f7cdc90674cbf09391/mrp_workorder/static/src/mrp_display/dialog/mrp_employee_dialog.js#L16 
[2]-
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/5fe2fb44f4c8a938390343f7cdc90674cbf09391/mrp_workorder/static/src/mrp_display/employees_panel.xml#L9-L10 

## Solution:
Allowing operators to see images can be done by modifying the links to use the public model instead of the private model.

This will allow operators see other operators based on images and should improve user experience.

| Before |
|--------|
| <img width="1865" height="844" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/c28f4209-0a60-486a-bfec-2a4db39cd946" /> |
| <img width="995" height="899" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/7541edd9-6cc9-42d1-b5c5-39e0740d9a93" /> | 

| After |
|--------|
| <img width="1881" height="903" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/df3f8357-5cc2-4688-83dd-9a009fd56957" /> |
| <img width="1221" height="862" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/c9d72b07-e1ad-43e4-85f5-00d8f1db9095" /> | 



opw-6321989

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123361
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#121751

# How to reproduce
- Go to Inventory > Settings > Operation Types
- Pick any Operation and disable "Allow extra product"
- Create a picking for that operation type with atleast one product and click on "Mark as Todo"
- Go to the Barcode app and find the created picking
- Scan all the reserved products
- Exit the picking and re-enter

# The problem
The "Add Product" button is displayed and you can scan unreserved products even tough you sould not be allowed to

# Cause of the issue
The problem stems from the fact that even with "Allow extra product" disabled, we still allow to add unreserved products for immediate transfers (created directly in the barcode app). The issue is that we don't really have a way to distinguish immediate transfers from plannified ones made in the Inventory app. So we try to guess using the `_useReservation` attribute (If it is false, we allow additional products).

`_useReservation` is computed as follows : if any move lines from the inital state is not yet picked, set it to true :
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/ca4b369e4fc9f4655574cf1ca71c81faaadc3e88/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_picking_model.js#L43

So in our case, once all the reserved products are scanned, all the initial move lines are picked and our guessing fails.

# Proposed Solution
Since immediate transfers are never validated and stays in draft mode, guess using the state of the current picking in addition to `useReservation`

opw-6231238

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118378

The sidebar always loads the user's favorite articles along with the visible ones, so a favorited article is shown as a root of the favorite tree. When that favorite is also a child of a folded article, it gets added to its parent's child_ids in the main tree, even though the parent's other children were not fetched. A folded article only gets its favorited children back from get_sidebar_articles, not its whole child set.

When the parent is then unfolded, unfold() only read the children from the database when child_ids was empty. The favorited child already filled child_ids, so the call was skipped and the remaining children stayed hidden until the next reload.

unfold() now uses a new children_loaded flag instead of the length of child_ids to decide whether to fetch the children. The flag is set once an article's whole child set is loaded: in loadChildren(), and in loadArticles() for the articles that were unfolded, since those come back with all their children. loadChildren() also rebuilds child_ids from the search result so a favorite already loaded is not added twice. The fix lives in the sidebar component because the partial child_ids only exists on the frontend, get_sidebar_articles already returns the right records.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Open the Knowledge app
2. Create an article with two child articles
3. Add one of the two children to your favorites with the star icon
4. Open another article that is not under that parent
5. Fold the parent article in the sidebar, then refresh the page
6. Expand the parent article

=> only the favorited child is shown under the parent, the other child is missing

Ticket [link](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project.task/6186466)
opw-6186466

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118804

**Commit 1:  [FIX] account_reports: warning for CTA visibility**
Steps to reproduce:
- Open the balance sheet

-> The warning for CTA is displayed even when a single company is selected.
It should only be the case if multiple companies having different currencies
are involved in the computation of the report.

**Commit 2: [FIX] account_reports: hide groupby field on form view for composite report**
this field is useless for composite reports.

**Commit 3: [FIX] account_reports: differentiate UX for auditable external values.**
When creating a budget in the P&L, the external value cells should not be
auditable. The data was properly set but not the templates.

**Commit 4: [FIX] account_reports: avoid traceback on double-click on warning**
Steps to reproduce:
- Open an accounting report with any warning banner ("draft entries" for example)
- Quickly double-click the delete cross button

-> traceback stating that it cannot read properties of null (reading 'remove').

**Commit 5: [FIX] account_reports: working file card style adjustments**
<img width="401" height="317" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/76f636f0-09d8-44e5-8c7c-37561dc00b10" />


task-6361495

Steps to reproduce:
1. Install `l10n_ke_edi_oscu_pos`, set company to Kenya.
2. Sell and validate an order.
3. Refund it from the POS and validate the refund order.

Issue:
- A traceback is raised when validating the refund: `ValueError: Expected singleton: pos.order(<refund>, <original>)` raised in `get_l10n_ke_edi_oscu_pos_data`.

Cause:
- When syncing a refund, `sync_from_ui` returns both the new refund order and the original refunded order. `waitForPushOrder` forces post-processing for every Kenyan order in that list, so `beforePostPushOrderResolve` receives both ids in `order_server_ids` and forwards them as-is to `action_post_order` and `get_l10n_ke_edi_oscu_pos_data`, both of which expect a single record. `action_post_order` fails the same way, but its error was silently swallowed by the surrounding try/catch, letting the traceback surface only on the second call.
- The same multi-id list is also produced whenever several orders created offline get synced together once back online.

Solution:
- `get_l10n_ke_edi_oscu_pos_data` is only needed for the receipt of the order being validated, so call it with `order.id` instead of the full `order_server_ids` list.
- Replace the `action_post_order` call with `action_post_selected_orders`, which posts each order individually and skips ones already sent to eTIMS, correctly handling both the refund case (original order is already `sent`) and the offline multi-order sync case.

opw-6364221

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123043

# How to reproduce
You need to simulate the fact that you are creating an appraisal late so either : 
A) Directly edit the `next_appraisal_date` in SQL
B) Go to Employee App > any Employee > Settings, set Next Appraisal Date to tomorrow and wait for 2 days

Then :
- Click on Request Appraisal
- Save

# The problem
An error is shown saying "You cannot set 'Next Appraisal Date' in the past.". You can workaround this by changing the Next Appraisal Date to a date in the future, but the problem is not every user has the right to do this.

# Cause
`next_appraisal_date` is also defined in hr.appraisal as a relate field of hr.employee : https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/0226ad15abc8db70f8e379fddec3d83d15749c85/hr_appraisal/models/hr_appraisal.py#L56-L57

When creating an hr.appraisal, `next_appraisal_date` is present in `vals_list` because it is defined in the view since : https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/58fba3098f33db82dfbccca2db229550402ed3ab https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/0226ad15abc8db70f8e379fddec3d83d15749c85/hr_appraisal/views/hr_appraisal_views.xml#L92

This triggers a write on `next_appraisal_date` of hr.employee which triggers a constraint : https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/0226ad15abc8db70f8e379fddec3d83d15749c85/hr_appraisal/models/hr_employee.py#L81-L85

opw-6147865

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#122440
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#114876

Before this commit, _compute_l10n_be_computed_seniority looped over cp200_versions but still read self.employee_id and self.l10n_be_scale_seniority, so when Odoo batched multiple CP200 versions together, the whole recordset was passed to _get_first_version_date(), crashing with a singleton error.

After this commit, the loop correctly uses version.employee_id and version.l10n_be_scale_seniority instead.

Traceback (important part):

```py
    File "/home/odoo/src/enterprise/l10n_be_hr_payroll/models/hr_version.py", line 1508, 
  in _compute_l10n_be_computed_seniority                                                 
      company_seniority = relativedelta(fields.Date.today(),                             
  self.employee_id._get_first_version_date()).years                                      
                                                                                         
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                                             
    File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/addons/hr/models/hr_employee.py", line 621, in             
  _get_first_version_date                                                                
      versions = self._get_last_consecutive_versions(date_limit)                         
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                         
    File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/addons/hr/models/hr_employee.py", line 595, in             
  _get_last_consecutive_versions                                                         
      self.ensure_one()                                                                  
    File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/odoo/orm/models.py", line 5406, in ensure_one              
      raise ValueError("Expected singleton: %s" % self)                                  
  ValueError: Expected singleton: hr.employee(30, 1)           
  ```

task-6377630

## [FIX] sale_renting_planning: check global leaves working schedule

Before this commit: any `resource.calendar.leaves` with no `resource_id` created would prevent all resources from being allocated during the leave date.

After this commit: any `resource.calendar.leaves` with `no resource_id` would be applied only to resources with the same `calendar_id` as the leave.

if the leave has no `calendar_id` then the leave applies to all `resource.calendars`

if a resource has no `calendar_id` then leaves with no `calendar_id` apply to it as well

## [IMP] {website_}sale_renting_planning: move tests from industry and fix existing ones

This commit moves the tests from [odoo/industry#1980](vscode-file://vscode-app/snap/code/237/usr/share/code/resources/app/out/vs/code/electron-browser/workbench/workbench.html) to their respective standard modules.

It also fixes the logic behind some tests as they weren't testing a `planning.role` with `sync_shift_rental` enabled.

task-6179505

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120983
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#116430

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#273071
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#263864

Before this commit, when using discuss in mobile, actions in bottom sheet were too small and hard to click.

Steps to reproduce:
- open a conversation in discuss with a message
- click on "..." or long-press the message

This comes from changes in spreadsheet_dashboard were some CSS rules that were meant to impact only bottom sheet of spreadsheet_dashboard were actually impacting all the bottom sheets [1], including discuss actions.

This commit fixes the issue by putting a specific class on the bottom sheet menu in spreadsheet_dashboard, so that the CSS rule can be made specific to spreadsheet_dashboard and not affect other bottom sheets like the ones used in Discuss app.

[1]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/239190

Before
<img width="657" height="524" alt="Screenshot 2026-07-10 at 14 18 38" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/6e4cd083-3d4c-4c38-af89-93819e6eb1a8" />

After
<img width="656" height="527" alt="Screenshot 2026-07-10 at 14 18 25" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/48e66648-7f5e-4e42-8a64-b85499aceb97" />

Use case
--------

A recurring sale order, is automatically invoiced. The transaction is postprocessed and crash with this traceback

```
File "/home/odoo/src/enterprise/saas-19.2/sale_subscription/models/sale_order.py", line 1881, in _handle_automatic_invoices
invoice._post()
File "/home/odoo/src/custom/private/openerp_enterprise/models/subscription_assignation.py", line 439, in _post
posted_moves = super()._post(soft=soft)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/home/odoo/src/custom/private/openerp_enterprise/models/account.py", line 193, in _post
posted = super()._post(soft)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/home/odoo/src/enterprise/saas-19.2/hr_payroll_expense/models/account_move.py", line 21, in _post
res = super()._post(soft=soft) # Posting will automatically reconcile same-account-same-matching lines
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/home/odoo/src/enterprise/saas-19.2/l10n_in_reports/models/account_move.py", line 135, in _post
to_post = super()._post(soft=soft)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/home/odoo/src/enterprise/saas-19.2/account_loans/models/account_move.py", line 20, in _post
posted = super()._post(soft)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/home/odoo/src/enterprise/saas-19.2/sale_subscription/models/account_move.py", line 21, in _post
posted_moves = super()._post(soft=soft)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/home/odoo/src/enterprise/saas-19.2/account_invoice_extract/models/account_invoice.py", line 235, in _post
posted = super()._post(soft)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/home/odoo/src/enterprise/saas-19.2/account_asset/models/account_move.py", line 130, in _post
posted = super()._post(soft)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.2/addons/l10n_it_edi/models/account_move.py", line 360, in _post
return super()._post(soft)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.2/addons/l10n_in_edi/models/account_move.py", line 156, in _post
res = super()._post(soft=soft)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.2/addons/account_peppol_response/models/account_move.py", line 42, in _post
res = super()._post(soft)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.2/addons/sale/models/account_move.py", line 149, in _post
invoice.js_assign_outstanding_line(line.id)
File "/home/odoo/src/enterprise/saas-19.2/account_accountant/models/account_move.py", line 589, in js_assign_outstanding_line
super().js_assign_outstanding_line(line_id)
File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.2/addons/account/models/account_move.py", line 6430, in js_assign_outstanding_line
return lines.reconcile()
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.2/addons/account/models/account_move_line.py", line 3324, in reconcile
return self._reconcile_plan([self])
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.2/addons/account/models/account_move_line.py", line 2978, in _reconcile_plan
plan_list, all_amls = self._optimize_reconciliation_plan(reconciliation_plan)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.2/addons/account/models/account_move_line.py", line 2940, in _optimize_reconciliation_plan
amls._check_amls_exigibility_for_reconciliation(shadowed_aml_values=shadowed_aml_values)
File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.2/addons/account/models/account_move_line.py", line 2832, in _check_amls_exigibility_for_reconciliation
raise UserError(_("You can not reconcile cancelled entries."))

You can not reconcile cancelled entries.
```

Because an old transaction: state = 'reconciled' but is_reconciled is false get attached to the new invoice. The the tx.payment_id.move_id was cancelled by the accounting team, and the invoice was reconcilled directly with the bank statement.

So we end up with a cancelled move that block any further invoice for this subscription.

Solution
--------

According to accounting team, the move_id of the payment is always posted except if there is some manual intervention. We make sure we link only transaction with payment with posted moved

opw-6368231

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#275445
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#274764