Issue:
The Item Trace Number according to CPA-005 standard should be a nonzero sequence that serves as unique reference ID for payments. Currently, Odoo sets the Item Trace Number of all payments as a zero-filled sequence 

According to CPA-005 standards on the Item Trace Number:
"The data elements (b), (c) and (d) each must be greater than zero or the TRANSACTION WILL BE REJECTED" (page 36).
https://www.payments.ca/sites/default/files/standard005eng.pdf

Steps to reproduce:
1. Install the module l10n_ca_payment_cpa005
2. Go into "CA Company"
3. In the configuration for "CA Company", add something to the fields "Short Name used in Canadian EFT" and "Company ID" i.e. "CCC"
4. Set all the fields in the "Canadian EFT/CPA Configuration" section of the bank journal
5. Set the bank record on the bank journal. Set the field "Financial Institution ID Number" field of the "Account Number" record of the bank journal to any numerical sequence
6. Create a bank account on "Azure Interior" and make sure to check the field to trust the bank account that you created (otherwise there will be an error)
7. Create two payments with the vendor of "Azure Interior" using the payment method of "Canadian EFT"
8. Create a batch payment for both payments created
9. Validate the batch payment and the export file should show up in the chatter
10. Note that in the export file, the Item Trace Number for each payment is set to be all zeros, whereas it should be a nonzero identification sequence

Solution:
Set the Item Trace Number to be the payment's id

opw-6323432

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124016
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123633

## [FIX] industry_fsm_sale: fix invoice status for zero price lines

### Issue:
Without Anglo-Saxon accounting, the system incorrectly sets the invoice status of all zero price sales order lines linked to an FSM task to 'no'

This includes pre-existing lines that were already present on the quotation before confirmation. If a zero price line is pre-existing, it should follow the standard flow and be marked as 'to invoice'
Only lines added as materials from the field service task at a zero price should be considered included in the price and marked as 'no'

### Cause:
In `SaleOrderLine._compute_invoice_status`, the system forced `invoice_status = 'no'` for all zero price lines when Anglo-Saxon accounting was disabled
It failed to check if the lines were actually materials added via the FSM task or original quotation lines

### Fix:
A new `material_sale_lines` compute field is added to `project.task` to distinctly isolate and track lines added specifically as materials during the task execution

In `SaleOrderLine._compute_invoice_status`, the logic is updated to ensure that only zero price lines identified as FSM materials are set to 'no' when Anglo-Saxon accounting is disabled
Other pre-existing zero price lines properly remain as 'to invoice'

### Steps to reproduce:
- Install `industry_fsm_sale`
- In Settings > Users & Companies > Companies > Any company, add the field Anglo-Saxon using Studio (In 19.0+)
- Disable Anglo-Saxon on the current company
- Create a product Service (Fixed Price, that create a task in a Field Service Project)
- Create and confirm a Sale Order with the Service and one product with unit price 0
Before the fix, the pre-existing SO line with price 0 is 
incorrectly considered as not to invoice ('no')

opw-6169802

------------------------------

## [FIX] industry_fsm_sale: sync sale order invoice status

### Issue:
When a sale order contains FSM material lines with a price of zero and Anglo-Saxon accounting is disabled, the overall sale order invoice status remains stuck on 'to invoice' even after all other invoiceable lines are fully invoiced

### Cause:
The standard `SaleOrder._compute_invoice_status` does not handle FSM business rules regarding zero price material lines that are marked as `invoice_status = 'no'`
Because these lines are never technically invoiced, the global order status fails to transition to 'invoiced'

### Fix:
Override `SaleOrder._compute_invoice_status` to recompute the status of confirmed orders linked to FSM tasks

We use the task's `material_sale_lines` to filter out material components
If all lines on the order are either 'invoiced' or are zero price FSM material lines with Anglo-Saxon disabled, the global sale order status is forced to 'invoiced'

### Steps to reproduce:
- Install `industry_fsm_sale`
- In Settings > Users & Companies > Companies > Any company, add the field Anglo-Saxon using Studio (In 19.0+)
- Disable Anglo-Saxon on the current company
- Create a product Service (Fixed Price, that create a task in a Field Service Project)
- Create and confirm a Sale Order with the Service and one product with unit price 0
- Add a Product from the Task (Use a price 0 product, or set the unit price to 0 on the SO)
- Create the invoice for the Sale Order
Before the fix, the Service and Pre-existing product are invoiced, but in the Other Info Tab of the SO, the status stays on 'To Invoice' instead of 'Fully Invoiced'

opw-6169802

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123151
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119238

When a user asks an AI agent to open a view, a GPT-powered model simply
replies that it cannot do that. A Gemini-powered model takes a lot of
time computing, but eventually succeeds. In both cases, the models
successfully load the "View Builder" topic.

This buggy behavior is isolated to version saas-19.3. On other versions,
after a topic is loaded, we send a list of all accessible views and menus
to the agent so it knows how to navigate. That context was missing here,
so this solution backports the fix from master.

This context is strictly necessary because the agents are not allowed to
query `ir.ui.menu` directly. Gemini was only getting around this by
repeatedly calling `Get Menu Details` until it finally guessed the right one.

Since this missing context affects multiple areas, this commit adds the
required accessible views and menus context to the View Builder, Update
Records, Create Records, and Information Retrieval topics.

Additionally, this commit updates the system prompt to prevent OpenAI
models from fixating exclusively on tools. Previously, if a model had
already loaded a topic but needed a tool from a different one, it would
incorrectly claim it lacked access to the necessary tool instead of
loading the appropriate topic. The prompt edits shift the models' focus
toward managing topics rather than just executing tools.

related-commit: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/a6d804fe328e27bfdb1c35dc777aa25e1fce99d8

task-6234300

### Steps to reproduce:

- In the settings enable: "Storage Locations" and "Consignment"
- Create a storable product and put 1 unit in stock with a set owner
- Go to the barcode app > Operations > Delivery Orders > New
- Scan your product and validate
#### > The owner was not set on the stock move line so that a new quant was created and updated in stock rather than using the available unit.

### Cause of the issue:

The mechanism of prefilling an owner or a package in the barcode app is currently gate-kept behind the existence of a lot name: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/0be4f71de3420fb9b72fd4e70d48c6cbbbc0ecb4/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L1382-L1407
However, the option also make sense for none tracked products.

### Note:

Performing the flow form the backend and adding quantity will generate the move line by setting the owner if possible since the quantity of a move is set via the back end, move lines are generated by looking at the existing quant data's:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5d61c03b33c9a915684dd59656f8be7612956dd1/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L2364 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5d61c03b33c9a915684dd59656f8be7612956dd1/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L2328-L2330
Setting the same owner on the new move line as on the quant we are going to reserve:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5d61c03b33c9a915684dd59656f8be7612956dd1/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L2337 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5d61c03b33c9a915684dd59656f8be7612956dd1/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1715

Additional subtelties appearing when prefilling for non tracked product:

1. Currently the available quantity is not taken into account to determine if the the value provided to the prefilled is actually
relevant, in particular if there is a quant with an available quantity of 0, it will be used as a valid value to prefill and it will parasit the prefill that could be done by other quants.

2. The location source used to determine the quants taken into account is not set on the first scan since the scan is performed without any existing line:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/4f0d25f9fe4ca8ff1b0ecd7900899a2a246ba888/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L1387
> This was not problematic with respect to tracked product since the product needs to be scanned prior to the lot, hence there is always a current line when the the lot is scanned.

opw-6050657

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124017
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#115021

On the website booking page, moving to a later month can show no available times even though the weekly schedule clearly has some.

### Steps to reproduce

- Install Appointments.
- Create a recurring appointment type available on a single weekday (say Monday), with a user or resource assigned and a date range spanning a few months.
- Set `Allow bookings at least` (the minimum booking delay) so that the current time plus the delay falls after this month's last Monday. Close to the end of a month, a day or two of delay is enough.
- Open the booking page: the first month shown is next month, because the delay skipped this month's last slot.
- Click the arrow to move forward one more month.

=> the reached month shows no slots, even though it has Monday availability.

### Cause

The calendar computes availability one month at a time. It builds a list of months, and the browser refers to each month by its position in that list (0, 1, 2, ...). Clicking the next arrow sends that position back to the server.

The server turns the position into a real month by adding it to a start month, which it computes as `now` plus the minimum booking delay. But the list shown to the visitor does not start there: it starts at the month of the first slot that can actually be booked.

These two are usually the same, so the position lines up. They stop matching when the delay moves the earliest bookable time past the last availability day of the current month. In the steps above, `now` plus the delay lands after the month's last Monday, so the first bookable slot is a Monday in the next month. The visitor's list then starts one month later than the server assumes, every position points one month too early, and the server computes availability for a month the visitor is not looking at. The reached month comes back empty.

### Fix

Count the visitor's month position from the same first bookable slot the list starts from, instead of from `now` plus the delay. The navigation offset is passed to the slot computation and resolved against that slot, so the filled month always matches the month the visitor sees.

opw-6353569

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123994
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#122494

## 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

***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

**Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:**

When a POS user attempts to open the Kitchen Display app from the main dashboard, they are blocked by an Access Error, despite being able to access the interface from within the POS app's sub-menu.

This occurs because the dashboard menu triggers a server action (`action_pos_preparation_display_kitchen_display`) to route the user. When a server action has no explicitly defined `group_ids`, Odoo's `_can_execute_action_on_records` method falls back to requiring `write` access on the underlying model (`pos.prep.display`) to execute the code. Since standard POS users do not have 'write' access to this model, the execution engine blocks the routing attempt.

This commit resolves the issue by explicitly appending the POS User group to the server action's `group_ids`.

opw-6305014

**Steps to reproduce:**

- As Mitchell Admin:
    - Settings > Users & Companies > Users > Marc Demo > Access Rights > Sales > set POS to User
- As Marc Demo:
    - Attempt to access Kitchen Display app > observe Access Error
    - POS > Orders > Preparation Display > observe no error


**Current behavior before PR:**

- POS Users receive an Access Error when attempting to access the Kitchen Display app from the main dashboard

**Desired behavior after PR is merged:**

- No Access Error when POS Users access the Kitchen Display app

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#122531
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#121419

### Steps to reproduce:

- In the settings enable: "Storage Locations" and "Consignment"
- Create a storable product and put 1 unit in stock with a set owner
- Go to the barcode app > Operations > Delivery Orders > New
- Scan your product and validate
#### > The owner was not set on the stock move line so that a new quant was created and updated in stock rather than using the available unit.

### Cause of the issue:

The mechanism of prefilling an owner or a package in the barcode app is currently gate-kept behind the existence of a lot name: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/0be4f71de3420fb9b72fd4e70d48c6cbbbc0ecb4/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L1382-L1407
However, the option also make sense for none tracked products.

### Note:

Performing the flow form the backend and adding quantity will generate the move line by setting the owner if possible since the quantity of a move is set via the back end, move lines are generated by looking at the existing quant data's:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5d61c03b33c9a915684dd59656f8be7612956dd1/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L2364 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5d61c03b33c9a915684dd59656f8be7612956dd1/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L2328-L2330
Setting the same owner on the new move line as on the quant we are going to reserve:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5d61c03b33c9a915684dd59656f8be7612956dd1/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L2337 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5d61c03b33c9a915684dd59656f8be7612956dd1/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1715

Additional subtelties appearing when prefilling for non tracked product:

1. Currently the available quantity is not taken into account to determine if the the value provided to the prefilled is actually
relevant, in particular if there is a quant with an available quantity of 0, it will be used as a valid value to prefill and it will parasit the prefill that could be done by other quants.

2. The location source used to determine the quants taken into account is not set on the first scan since the scan is performed without any existing line:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/4f0d25f9fe4ca8ff1b0ecd7900899a2a246ba888/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L1387
> This was not problematic with respect to tracked product since the product needs to be scanned prior to the lot, hence there is always a current line when the the lot is scanned.

opw-6050657

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123173
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#115021

**Problem:**
On the website, a subscription product page returns a 500 error when a discount is set directly on the recurring plan (a time-based pricing rule with a plan but no pricelist).

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Create a subscription product with a recurring plan.
2. Add a recurring price rule for that plan with no pricelist, set as a percentage discount (base = sales price).
3. Open the product page on the website.

**Current behavior:**
The page fails with a 500: Internal Server Error during price computation.

**Expected behavior:**
The page loads and shows the discounted recurring price.

**Cause of the issue:**
For a recurring price rule based on the sales price, `_compute_base_price` looks up "the no-pricelist rule for the plan" to use as its base, via `_get_applicable_rules_domain(plan_id=...)`. When the discount is set directly on the plan, the rule being computed has no pricelist itself, so that search returns the very same rule and calls `_compute_price` on it again, leading to infinite recursion.

**Fix:**
Excluding the rule itself from the base-rule lookup lets a no-pricelist plan rule resolve its base from the product's sales price (the super() fallback) instead of re-entering its own computation. A rule applied through a pricelist is unaffected, since its no-pricelist base rule is a different record.

opw-6306105

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#121466

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

similar to https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/120566/changes/b5b6589c9c91980e41d025ae74082af63907debc

When generating an offer from the recruitment application and signing it, the applicant's email address is incorrectly displayed.

### **Steps to Reproduce:**
1) Install sign, recruitment, hr_contract_salary
2) Create an new application and add basic detail like name and email as
   (path and path@test.com)
3) Generate offer and sign with all the required signer. 
4) Open the application form view and open the certificate.

### **Observed Behavior:**
Email is not set correctly in the generated certificate (appearing as john@example.com).

### **Expected Behavior:**
The email of the applicant should be correctly set(e.g as path@test.com)

### **Root Cause:**
When the applicant signs the document, their email is explicitly set to `False` at [1]. This is done because the applicant is not linked to any user yet. Later, when generating the certificate, the system attempts to display the user's partner email at [2], which is `False`, causing the default fallback value (`john@example.com`) to be printed.

[1]- https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/49226f4109c7d7bb48340949951e70f4245d0e5b/hr_contract_salary/controllers/main.py#L53-L54

[2]- https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/49226f4109c7d7bb48340949951e70f4245d0e5b/sign/report/sign_log_reports.xml#L59

### **Fix:**
Use `signer_email` instead of the partner's email to ensure the correct email is displayed on the certificate every time.

**opw-6280170**

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123998
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123767

On the website booking page, moving to a later month can show no available times even though the weekly schedule clearly has some.

### Steps to reproduce

- Install Appointments.
- Create a recurring appointment type available on a single weekday (say Monday), with a user or resource assigned and a date range spanning a few months.
- Set `Allow bookings at least` (the minimum booking delay) so that the current time plus the delay falls after this month's last Monday. Close to the end of a month, a day or two of delay is enough.
- Open the booking page: the first month shown is next month, because the delay skipped this month's last slot.
- Click the arrow to move forward one more month.

=> the reached month shows no slots, even though it has Monday availability.

### Cause

The calendar computes availability one month at a time. It builds a list of months, and the browser refers to each month by its position in that list (0, 1, 2, ...). Clicking the next arrow sends that position back to the server.

The server turns the position into a real month by adding it to a start month, which it computes as `now` plus the minimum booking delay. But the list shown to the visitor does not start there: it starts at the month of the first slot that can actually be booked.

These two are usually the same, so the position lines up. They stop matching when the delay moves the earliest bookable time past the last availability day of the current month. In the steps above, `now` plus the delay lands after the month's last Monday, so the first bookable slot is a Monday in the next month. The visitor's list then starts one month later than the server assumes, every position points one month too early, and the server computes availability for a month the visitor is not looking at. The reached month comes back empty.

### Fix

Count the visitor's month position from the same first bookable slot the list starts from, instead of from `now` plus the delay. The navigation offset is passed to the slot computation and resolved against that slot, so the filled month always matches the month the visitor sees.

opw-6353569

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123994
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#122494

***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

## 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

similar to https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/120566/changes/b5b6589c9c91980e41d025ae74082af63907debc

When generating an offer from the recruitment application and signing it, the applicant's email address is incorrectly displayed.

### **Steps to Reproduce:**
1) Install sign, recruitment, hr_contract_salary
2) Create an new application and add basic detail like name and email as
   (path and path@test.com)
3) Generate offer and sign with all the required signer. 
4) Open the application form view and open the certificate.

### **Observed Behavior:**
Email is not set correctly in the generated certificate (appearing as john@example.com).

### **Expected Behavior:**
The email of the applicant should be correctly set(e.g as path@test.com)

### **Root Cause:**
When the applicant signs the document, their email is explicitly set to `False` at [1]. This is done because the applicant is not linked to any user yet. Later, when generating the certificate, the system attempts to display the user's partner email at [2], which is `False`, causing the default fallback value (`john@example.com`) to be printed.

[1]- https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/49226f4109c7d7bb48340949951e70f4245d0e5b/hr_contract_salary/controllers/main.py#L53-L54

[2]- https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/49226f4109c7d7bb48340949951e70f4245d0e5b/sign/report/sign_log_reports.xml#L59

### **Fix:**
Use `signer_email` instead of the partner's email to ensure the correct email is displayed on the certificate every time.

**opw-6280170**

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123998
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123767

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

The module behaves in an unexpected way:

- Tax is based on a customer's home address,
- To calculate tax a customer must be selected,
- Tax is calculated as if shipped from the warehouse selected on pos_warehouse_id

This could be useful in very obscure scenarios (B2B sales, traveling salesmen), but for those cases customers can already use our Avatax integration on sale orders.

We want this module to be useful for normal B2C POS sales. Taxes they charge are the same regardless of where the customer may live. This commit makes many changes:

- Stop requiring a customer to be selected,
- Always calculate local sales (from company location to company location) if the Avatax option is enabled on pos.config,
- Fix a bug where price_subtotal is not multiplied by quantity,
- Removes copy/pasted code from sale.order that serves no purpose,

This makes the module useful for companies that don't want to manually figure out what taxes to charge. This could be especially useful for companies with many shops in different locations.

A tour test was added to make sure the module keeps working. The test added before [1] was removed because it was redundant and less complete than the one included here.

This is deliberately not backported to Odoo 18 [2]. We keep the current behavior there.

[1] https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/3e94fe90ded58d498f0098cd9ed8679cbe500b8f

Closes odoo/enterprise#82779

task-4710463

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123190

***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#123575

## 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

Steps to reproduce:
------------------------------------------------
1. Install Event module
2. Create a multi day event
3. Create one attendee for the event
4. Change the event dates
5. Go to attendee and Click on Send by Email

Observation:
------------------------------------------------
The event start date displayed in the email body is not updated after the event dates are modified.

Issue:
------------------------------------------------
In `saas-18.2`, `event_begin_date` and `event_end_date` were simple related fields that automatically updated when their source fields changed. https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/saas-18.2/addons/event/models/event_registration.py#L57-L58

However, in `saas-18.3`, slots were introduced and these fields were converted to computed fields
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/205945/changes/e2bf8a89d6a50bd40f4673bef38176465f83ba0f

* `event_begin_date` is made stored for cohort view grouping
* However, the base compute method only depends on `event_id` and `event_slot_id`
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ac37b479321dbe9dbf864e833900e043b1cc70df/addons/event/models/event_registration.py#L177-L180
* When you change `event.date_begin` or `event.date_end`, the registration records don't recompute because the dependency is on the `event_id`, not on the related date fields (`event_id.date_begin`, `event_id.date_end`)
* Non-stored computed fields recalculate on-the-fly when accessed, so `event_end_date` appeared to work
* Stored computed fields only recalculate when their explicit dependencies change

Solution:
------------------------------------------------
* Corrected the dependencies of `_compute_event_begin_date` to recompute
value on changing the date of the event

opw-6284576

## 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

Cached functions with `@ormcache` should not return immutable values, yet `_get_parameter_from_code()` could return dicts/sets/lists/etc.

It could lead to very obscure bugs such as:

```python
def some_innocent_code():
    category_dict = self.env["hr.rule.parameter"]._get_parameter_from_code('l10n_be_work_entry_categories')
    incapacity_codes = category_dict['partial_incapacity']
    incapacity_codes |= category_dict['total_incapacity']
    # ... then use incapacity_codes

def print_rule_param():
    print(self.env["hr.rule.parameter"]._get_parameter_from_code('l10n_be_work_entry_categories')['partial_incapacity'])

print_rule_param()  # OrderedSet(['LEAVE281'])
some_innocent_code()
print_rule_param()  # OrderedSet(['LEAVE281', 'LEAVE264', 'LEAVE266', 'LEAVE217', 'LEAVE218', 'LEAVE219', 'MEDIC01'])
```

The solution was to either deepcopy the returned value each time, or to change all the rule parameters to their frozen equivalent. Since we don't have access to frozen objects in rule parameters's xml definitions, we opted for the deepcopy approach.

task-6329380

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123057

**Steps to reproduce:**
* Configure a Swiss company with the Swiss accounting localization.
* Install `account_sepa`.
* Configure a bank journal with a valid Swiss **QR-IBAN**.
* Create a vendor with a valid Swiss bank account.
* Under **Accounting -> Configuration -> Settings** enable QR Payments.
* Go to the vendor and enter the correct QR-IBAN number under the Accounting Section.
* Navigate to **Accounting -> Configuration -> Journals** and in the **bank** journal, add the 
  account number of  QR-IBAN.
* Create and post a vendor payment using the bank journal.
* Set the payment reference (`ref`) to contain the `°` character.
* Add the payment to a batch payment and generate the ISO 20022 payment file.
* Inspect the generated XML.

**Observed Behaviour:**
 The `°` character is preserved in the payment reference for QR-IBAN payments, producing an ISO 20022 file that 
 may be rejected by Swiss banks because it does not comply with the EPC minimum character set.

**Cause:**
 The QR-IBAN branch validates the structured reference before sanitizing it,
 allowing unsupported characters to remain in the generated XML.

**Fix:**
 Sanitize the payment reference before validating it as a QR structured reference, ensuring invalid characters 
 are removed while preserving valid QR references.

opw - 6350931

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123267

## Context

When generating a CFE (Comprobante Fiscal Electrónico) that contains both a configured addenda (e.g. bank account details stored in `l10n_uy_edi_addenda_ids`) and terms & conditions from the invoice's `narration` field, the resulting addenda string could end up with unnecessary blank lines between the two sections, causing the addenda to be rendered on a separate page even when the logical content fits within the 6-line threshold.

## Root Cause

`_l10n_uy_edi_get_addenda` joins both parts without stripping whitespace from either of them first, and adds two lines between addendas and terms and conditions:

         addenda = addenda + "\n\n" + term_and_conditions if addenda else term_and_conditions

Two sources independently introduce extra newlines around the separator:

1. **Addenda content** — `_get_legends` returns the raw `content`  field value of each addenda record. These fields commonly end  with a trailing `\n`, so the addenda string already ends with a newline before the `"\n"` separator is concatenated.
2. **`html2plaintext`** — the `narration` field is stored as HTML. When converted to plain text, `html2plaintext` typically wraps paragraph content in leading/trailing newlines.

The combination of the trailing `\n` from the addenda, the explicit `"\n\n"` separator, and the leading/trailing `\n` from `html2plaintext` produces 2–3 consecutive newlines, which `splitlines()` counts as blank lines. 
A realistic 4-line addenda + 1-line narration thus produces **7 lines** instead of the expected 5, crossing the 6-line threshold in `_get_report_params` and triggering `adenda=true` — which forces the addenda onto a separate page unnecessarily.

## Steps to Reproduce

1. Configure a `l10n_uy_edi.addenda` record of type `addenda` with multi-line content (4 lines)
2. Create and confirm an invoice with `narration` set to a short  single-line term 
3. Generate the CFE PDF via Uruware.
4. Observe that the addenda is rendered on a separate page despite the logical content being only 5 lines.

<img width="1042" height="448" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/b538211c-5f37-4648-979d-99cd75cf31c2" />


## Fix

Strip leading and trailing whitespace (including newlines) from both parts before joining them. The ternary is also replaced with an explicit `if/else` for clarity:

    def _l10n_uy_edi_get_addenda(self):
        addenda = self.l10n_uy_edi_document_id._get_legends("addenda", self)
        if self.narration:
            term_and_conditions = html2plaintext(self.narration).strip()
            if addenda:
                addenda = addenda.strip() + "\n" + term_and_conditions
            else:
                addenda = term_and_conditions
        return self._l10n_uy_edi_clean_non_ascii_chars(addenda)

This guarantees exactly one `\n` separator between sections regardless of how the content fields were stored or how `html2plaintext` formatted the narration.

The threshold logic in `_get_report_params` is unchanged: addendas that genuinely exceed 6 lines (after wrapping at 140 chars) continue to be printed on a dedicated page.

Result
<img width="1117" height="456" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/3a2d942c-8c37-40f6-bc25-470c0bd25b08" />