Steps to reproduce:
===================
1. Create a rental product with a day-based rental period (e.g. 1 day) and a non-rental accessory product.
2. Add the rental product to the cart.
3. From the cart page, click "Add to cart" on the suggested accessory.

=> RPC error: ValueError: unconverted data remains: .999999

Root cause:
===========
For rental products priced on a non-hourly recurrence, the cart's rental_return_date is stored as the end of day in the website timezone, i.e. with .999999 microseconds. The suggested-products button renders the rental dates as raw str(datetime) into its data attributes, and the accessory add-to-cart sent them verbatim to /shop/cart/add, where fields.Datetime.to_datetime() cannot parse microseconds.

Fix:
====
Round-trip the data-attribute values through deserializeDateTime / serializeDateTime so the controller receives the standard server datetime format without microseconds, like every other renting flow.

opw-6372176

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123887

***Issue:***
Since https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/8baaad621a1555680cd77ab514f626137b5b584d the div holding the selection box and the Actions menu carries t-key="targetRecords.length" in the documents list and kanban views, so every change of the selection count destroys and recreates everything inside it. Ticking a document checkbox updates both the selection and the focused record, and with these two updates the recreation goes wrong: the new ActionMenus component ends up destroyed while its button is still in the page. The dropdown click listeners are removed with the component, so clicking Actions does nothing until the selection changes again.

That t-key was added because the selection box shows a stale count after a file upload. The real problem is that SelectionBox caches this.root once in setup. The upload flow reloads the model, which replaces the root record list, and the box keeps counting the selection of the old one.

***Fix:***
Remove the t-key from documents_list_controller.xml and documents_kanban_controller.xml and make DocumentsSelectionBox read the current props.root instead of the value cached by the parent setup. The count follows the new record list after an upload without remounting anything, and the Actions menu is not recreated so its dropdown keeps working. The upload scenario stays covered by the existing multi_view.test.js test, a new test checks that the Actions menu opens with two selected documents.

***Steps to reproduce:***
1. Open the Documents app
2. Switch to the list view
3. Tick the checkboxes of two documents
4. Click the Actions button next to the "2 selected" box

=> the Actions dropdown does not open

Ticket [link](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project.task/6365618)

opw-6365618

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123986
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123575

Before this commit, columns with figure_type 'date'/'datetime', General Ledger's Date column, but also Partner Ledger, Aged Partner Balance, Bank Reconciliation and Customer Statement. were exported to XLSX as plain text strings instead of real Excel date values.

_get_cell_type_value, which decides whether a cell must be written as a date or as text, only recognized a cell as a date when its 'class' contained 'date'. _build_column_dict, used by every report to build its column cells, never set that key, so
the check always failed and cells fell back to text, even though figure_type was correctly set to 'date' on them.

_build_column_dict now also sets 'class': 'date' on date datetime columns, the same convention already used by hand-built cells
 in account_followup

This in turn revealed a second, so-far dormant issue: once real datetime values started reaching the XLSX writer, _set_xlsx_cell_sizes crashed while estimating the column width, as it unconditionally tried float(value) to shorten long numbers and only guarded against value errors and overflow errors, not the TypeError raised by float() on a datetime object. It now skips that numeric-shortening step for date/datetime values, like it already did for None.

opw-6276398

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#121668

## Issue
When creating or browsing an existing contract in a Luxembourgish company, the current index shown is the one from September 2023 (which was up-to-date until Mai 2025). If the contract is created after Mai 2025, the "Index on Contract Signature" field is also wrong.

## Steps to reproduce
1. Install *Luxembourg - Payroll* (`l10n_lu_hr_payroll`)
2. Using a Luxembourgish company, create a new contract for an employee
    - *Contract Start Date*: Any date after 05/01/2025 (Mai 1st 2025)
3. __The *Index on Contract Signature* shows `944.43`, which is the index from September 2023. It does not match with the most recent indices.__

## Cause
The two most recent indices are missing from the [`rule_parameter_lu_index`](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/885edbc270a86ab76e0a6eff4acb5767c0fe29d1/l10n_lu_hr_payroll/data/rule_parameters/general_rules_data.xml#L4-L58). These indices are:
- `968.04` from 2025-05-01 (Mai 1st 2025)
- `992.24` from 2026-06-01 (June 1st 2026)

These values were taken from [here](https://salary.lu/en/tools/social-parameters/indexation-of-salaries) and double-checked [here](https://lustat.statec.lu/?lc=en&tm=DF_C1201&pg=0&snb=1).

## Tests modification
Updating the latest index had an impact on the tests from the `l10n_lu_hr_payroll_account` (testing the salary rules). In fact, the current index (`l10n_lu_current_index`) is [used to compute the indexed wage](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/7892d035ddb968d67a3e8da0daf91292bd8fb499/l10n_lu_hr_payroll/models/hr_contract.py#L24-L33) (`l10n_lu_indexed_wage`), which is then used to compute most lines in the payslip (e.g., the `WAGE_SUPPLEMENT_70`).

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/7892d035ddb968d67a3e8da0daf91292bd8fb499/l10n_lu_hr_payroll/data/salary_rules/hr_salary_rule_data.xml#L70-L74

Since the latest index is not the same as when those tests were written, the values are not correct anymore. To prevent this, time was frozen to 01/01/2024 to use the expected index (944.43, from September 2023).

opw-6330790

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#122147

Runbot error 940032: a freshly opened discuss channel intermittently renders zero messages for the whole test, with the messages present in the store, `isLoaded` true and no error logged. Two mail-side fixes (9276cf3ab6e4, 65b907f816c4) reduced but did not stop it, because the cause is in OWL's scheduling.

When a reactive write notifies a component, OWL first clears all of the component's reactive subscriptions, then invokes its render callback. If the component's parent holds a pending, not yet rendered child fiber for it (the parent is mid-render, e.g. awaiting `onWillUpdateProps`, at least a one-microtask window even with synchronous hooks), the request is coalesced into that pending fiber. If another parent render then cancels that fiber before it could render, `cancelFibers` only set `forceNextRender` for fibers that had already rendered (with a `bdom`): a not yet rendered fiber was dropped without compensation. When the child's props also compare equal to its committed props (a transient prop that changed and reverted compares equal, as committed props are only updated on patch), the cancelling parent pass skips the child entirely. The coalesced render is lost, and since the subscriptions were already cleared, the component becomes deaf to every subsequent store change: stale DOM forever, no error, until an unrelated explicit render heals it. In the discuss case the lost render is the one that would have displayed the freshly loaded messages, and the parent double-render around the load completion comes from ordinary transient prop churn while the channel opens.

Force the next render of a mounted node whose not yet rendered fiber is cancelled, as OWL 3 already does. This vendors the fix made on the owl 2.x branch ahead of its next release. The regression test reproduces the exact runbot failure deterministically by gating `onWillUpdateProps` to widen the natural microtask window.

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

Typing in an HTML field (e.g. a contact's Internal Notes) and validating
a URL-like token with Enter or Space can crash the editor with
"IndexSizeError: The index is not in the allowed range", leaving the
user unable to continue typing. It happens on Safari (not Chromium).

The trigger is a URL-like token that the editor auto-converts into a
link. The splitText calls in prepareConvertToLink, run during
beforeinput, leave Safari's native selection anchored on an empty text
node with an out-of-range offset. Anything reading the selection
afterwards then works from a broken position: on Enter, splitBlock
reads it and makeActiveSelection ends up throwing in Range.setStart;
on Space, the browser inserts the character in the wrong node and the
selection is corrupted the same way.

```
UncaughtClientError > IndexSizeError
Uncaught Javascript Error > The index is not in the allowed range.
    setStart@[native code]
    createEditorSelection@.../web.assets_web.min.js:12239:15
    getSelectionData@.../web.assets_web.min.js:12242:145
    updateActiveSelection@.../web.assets_web.min.js:12230:92
    @.../web.assets_web.min.js:12218:873
    handler@.../web.assets_web.min.js:14366:121
```

Steps to reproduce:

1. Use Safari (Chromium-based browsers work fine)
2. Open any record with an HTML field (e.g. Contacts -> a contact ->
   Internal Notes).
3. Type a URL-like token such as KF.16D2.0204.CG (.CG is a valid TLD,
   so the editor auto-links it). Do not paste it.
4. Place the caret at the end of that token and press Enter or Space.
5. IndexSizeError is raised and the editor stops accepting input.

Fix it at the source: re-anchor the selection right after the splits in
prepareConvertToLink, so every consumer sees a valid caret position.
Since moving the selection during beforeinput makes WebKit cancel the
pending text insertion, the Space case now prevents the default and
performs the conversion, the space insertion and the caret placement
itself, in two history steps so that undo still reverts the link
conversion while keeping the typed space.

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275587
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#270910

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Create a fiscal position T1, with detect automatically
- Create another one T2, without the detect automatically
- When looking at the fiscal positions list, make sure T1 is on top, followed by T2
- Go to the PoS settings, check flexible taxes
- Put T2 as default and in allowed, don't put T1 in allowed
- Go to the PoS, chose a customer
- The fiscal position is T1 even though it's not allowed

**Why the fix:**

Currently, the fiscal position is chosen like this in order:
- A FP specified on the customer's profile
- A FP detected with the detect automatically setting
- The default FP from the PoS settings

When we have a tie, it's the first one in the fiscal positions list that is chosen.

Before this commit, we did not check that the fiscal position was allowed to be used in the PoS, so we just fetched whatever fiscal position fit the best for a given customer and didn't check if we could actually use it.

We now make sure that the fiscal position we try to use is allowed in the current PoS, and if it's not we fall back to the default one.

opw-6032031

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#271343

**Steps to reproduce:**

- Make a product with a category
- In the category, make the inventory valuation to automated
- Set the income and expense account
- Set a cost for the product
- Make a fiscal position and set it as default for the PoS
- In the Account Mapping tab, map the income and expense to two other accounts
- Go to the PoS
- Make a sale for that product, without invoice
- Close the session and in the backend check the session
- Check the journal entries
- The income account has been mapped to the fiscal position's
- The outcome account stayed the same as in the category's

**Why the fix:**

When we invoice an order, the income and expense accounts are immediately updated, in a different place than if it has not been invoiced.

At the session's closure, we update the accounts for every order that hasn't been invoiced. In this flow, the account mapping defined on the fiscal position was not applied, so we took the one defined on the product's category.
The income account was already mapped as we need to do it earlier than the session closure, so it had already been set as the right one before our flow. For the expense account, we only need it at this specific time, so we can map it as the session's closure.

We now map the account depending on the fiscal position if we are able to find one, otherwise, we use the category's default as we did before.

opw-6171677

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275114
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#266700

### Steps to reproduce:
- Download 'Sales' application
- From 'Configuration' > 'Settings', enable 'Promotions, Loyalty & Gift Card'
- From 'Products' > 'Gift cards & eWallet', Configure an eWallet program with a top-up product
- Have a customer with an existing eWallet balance
- Create a new sale order for that customer and add the eWallet top-up product
- Pay the order using the customer's eWallet
> The order gets discounted by the eWallet, effectively allowing the user to top up their balance
using the balance itself (infinite money glitch).

### Cause of Issue:
When computing the discountable amount for payment programs (like eWallets and gift cards), `_discountable_order` includes the total order amount. However, it did not exclude the program's own top-up products (`trigger_product_ids`) from the discountable lines.

### Fix:
If an order consists solely of top-up products, attempting to apply the eWallet now correctly raises a `UserError` ("There is nothing to discount").

opw-6341410

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#273419

Steps to produce:
---
- Install the `sales` module.
- Create a product and `enable track inventory.`
- Log in as user with only view access rights in products and also have the sales access rights.
- Create a sale order containing product and confirm it.

Issue:
---
-  An access error is raised during order confirmation.

Root cause:
---
- In [commit], to handle inventory tracking, the `qty_available` field
was moved to `product.product`. Unlike before, this value is increased
or decreased depending on the operation performed.

- As a consequence, creating or updating a sale order triggers a write
to this `qty_available` field on the related product. This
write happens under the current user's permissions, so users who
only have read access to products (but can create/edit sale orders)
hit an `AccessError`, since they lack write access on
`product.product`.


Solution:
---
- Use `sudo()` when accessing the required product quantity information
  to ensure the operation can be completed without requiring additional product
  access rights.

The same issue also occurs when confirming a purchase order.

[commit]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/ca96992919b11105da44238c3e522f8eec4a740b

opw-6290608
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

# How to reproduce
- In Settings, enable Variants & Product Reference Price
- Create a published Product with a Sales Price
- Add 2 variants to the Product
- In the product's variant list, select the first one & set Base Unit Count to 0,
- Set the second variant's Base Unit Count to a value > 0
- Go to the Product's page
- Select the second variant

# The issue
The Reference Price is not displayed for the second variant, even though it should since it has a Base Unit Count > 0. Refreshing the page while being on the second variant will prevent the bug from happening.

# Cause
When loading the product's info, we call `_onChangeCombination`. This method is responsible for, among other things, updating the reference price and hiding it if Base Unit Count  = 0 :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/68f258e99f42693131a5309b3606c3b95f93d824/addons/website_sale/static/src/js/variant_mixin.js#L277-L289

To do that, it will search for an html element with the `.o_base_unit_price` css class. If it does not find it, the reference price will not be updated. The issue is that this element is behind a condition in the template :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/68f258e99f42693131a5309b3606c3b95f93d824/addons/website_sale/views/templates.xml#L2083

When the first time the template is loaded, if
`combination_info.get('base_unit_price')` is False, then the Reference Price will never be added to the view and will never be found by `_onChangeCombination`.

Since our first variant has Base Unit Count = 0, then `base_unit_price` will equal 0, so `combination_info.get('base_unit_price')` will be evaluated to false.

opw-6367289

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#274722

**Steps to reproduce:**

- Create a product A, tracked by lots
- Create a kit product, include a component A
- Change the UoM to 0.5
- Go to the PoS, order this kit product
- Also order the component A, with a quantity of 2
- Pay for it, ask for an invoice
- Go to the created picking
- The Demand column is correctly computed and is 0.5
- The Quantity column is wrong and is 2

**Why the fix:**

When getting the data from https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/e0d84c7fbb270d0d1f82572daefa96c2978d3785/addons/point_of_sale/models/stock_picking.py#L283 
we always get the component's line, as the move's product is the component, even if it used to be the kit product's move. This is because when exploding a kit's moves, it gets the kit's component as a product instead of keeping the kit product.

This was introducing a weird behavior because we took the quantity from the component line, and not from the kit line, meaning the kit would always have the same quantity as the component.

We now check if the move is actually a kit product's move, and if it is we adapt the qty to correct one by fetching the correct line's qty, and adapting it with the correct UoM.

Changing the line in itself would not work, as the kit itself is not tracked by lots, so we would not enter https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/e0d84c7fbb270d0d1f82572daefa96c2978d3785/addons/point_of_sale/models/stock_picking.py#L284 
and the move line would not be correctly created.

opw-6153000

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275115
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262551