Users frequently use Odoo Studio to display the Daily Salary (`l10n_mx_daily_salary`) and Integration Factor (`l10n_mx_integration_factor`) fields on the payslip form to verify salary rule computations. However, doing so raises a traceback immediately upon closing the Studio editor, as well as when attempting to create a new Off-Cycle payslip.

### Steps to reproduce:
* Install `l10n_mx_hr_payroll` and `web_studio`.
* Switch to "INNOVACION VALOR Y DESARROLLO SA SA" company.
* Go to Payroll > Payslips > Payslips and create a "New Off-Cycle"
* Use the Studio editor to add `l10n_mx_daily_salary` or `l10n_mx_integration_factor` fields.
* Close the Studio editor.

### Current behavior:
A traceback is raised depending on the field added

#### For the Daily Salary field:
```py
  File "/Users/ivgm/odev/worktrees/19.0/enterprise/l10n_mx_hr_payroll/models/hr_payslip.py", line 21, in _compute_daily_salary
    payslip.l10n_mx_daily_salary = payslip.version_id.wage / payslip._rule_parameter('l10n_mx_schedule_table')[payslip.version_id.schedule_pay]
                                                             ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
KeyError: False
```

#### For the Integration Factor field:
```py
  File "/Users/ivgm/odev/worktrees/19.0/enterprise/l10n_mx_hr_payroll/models/hr_payslip.py", line 33, in _compute_integration_factor
    payslip.employee_id.with_context(before_date=payslip.date_from)._get_first_contract_date()
  File "/Users/ivgm/odev/worktrees/19.0/odoo/addons/hr/models/hr_employee.py", line 493, in _get_first_contract_date
    versions = self._get_first_versions_filtered(no_gap=no_gap).filtered(lambda x: x.contract_date_start)
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/Users/ivgm/odev/worktrees/19.0/odoo/addons/hr/models/hr_employee.py", line 461, in _get_first_versions_filtered
    self.ensure_one()
  File "/Users/ivgm/odev/worktrees/19.0/odoo/odoo/orm/models.py", line 5942, in ensure_one
    raise ValueError("Expected singleton: %s" % self)
ValueError: Expected singleton: hr.employee()
```

### Expected behavior:
No error is raised, and the fields are correctly displayed on the form view.

### Solution:
* Add Guard Clause: When creating a "New Off-Cycle" payslip, `payslip.version_id` is not initially set because no employee has been selected yet. Added a condition to check if `version_id` exists before computing the values to prevent the traceback.
* View Update: Since displaying these fields is a highly requested feature for traceability, they have now been added to the form view.

target: 19.0
task-6267003

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#121718

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120184

### Steps to reproduce

1. Create a invoice with a section and add products under it with values
2. Enable **Hide Composition** on the section.
3. Print the invoice PDF.

<table>
  <tr>
    <td>
      <img width="1278" height="425" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/969a222a-5e2f-48e2-962d-fc1cf6440619" />
    </td>
  </tr>
 </table>

### Description

When an invoice contains a section and products in it with values and with **Hide Composition** enabled, the PDF invoice report incorrectly displays the **Disc.%** column header even though no discount values in that section line.

The report currently computes `display_discount` using `o.invoice_line_ids`:

```xml
<t t-set="display_discount" t-value="any(l.discount for l in o.invoice_line_ids)"/>
```

Since `o.invoice_line_ids` still contains the hidden product lines, `display_discount` evaluates to `True`, causing the **Disc.%** column header to be displayed. However, those product lines are replaced by the section line in the report, so no discount values are shown, resulting in an empty column.


### Current behavior

The **Disc.%** column is displayed, but all its cells are empty.

<table>
  <tr>
    <td>
      <img width="808" height="488" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/7d9afee6-fef5-49c8-bc4e-b01caa8b43bd" />
    </td>
  </tr>
</table>

### Expected behavior

The **Disc.%** column should not be displayed when the reported lines do not contain any discounts.

<table>
  <tr>
    <td>
      <img width="798" height="427" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/6ffe7985-a7d0-43f5-8d40-41e700ecbed3" />
    </td>
  </tr>
</table>

### Solution

Compute `lines_to_report` before evaluating `display_discount` and use it instead:

```xml
<t t-set="lines_to_report" t-value="o._get_move_lines_to_report()"/>
<t t-set="display_discount" t-value="any(l.discount for l in lines_to_report)"/>
```

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276003
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275793

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#270067

**Steps to reproduce:**

- Create a dynamic variant with 2 values, A and B
- B should have an extra price of 200
- Create a product which has those two variants, with a price of 1000
- Set up a barcode for the product with the B variant only
- Go to the PoS, enter the barcode for the product with the B variant
- The price is 1400 instead of 1200

**Why the fix:**

The extra price for dynamic variants ordered through the barcode will be counted twice.
This is because it is first counted in the _scan(code) method when we fetch the product from the models, then counted again when adding the line to the current order.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f4d079cc5a9c47672cf1a6747bb073e8e74f7350/addons/point_of_sale/static/src/app/services/pos_store.js#L1264-L1269

This step is necessary for the usual flow without the barcode as we need to add this extra price, but when using the barcode, the list price of the product we fetch is already 1200, as the extra price is already included when fetching it from the backend.

It works for always attributes because we explicitly check that we are not adding the extra price again in the above code, and that the list price already includes the extra price. It also works for the never attributes because values.product_id.product_template_variant_value_ids.length is 0, so the code to update the extra price is never triggered.

As we still need to add the extra price for the usual flow, we now just check if we have a code, meaning we added the product through the barcode and that we do not need to add it again, as the list price already accounts for the extra price.

opw-6328600

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#272395

[FIX] fleet: fix vendor bill vehicle association bug

Bug reprod: Go to 19.2 or above

    1 - Go to vendor bills.
    2 - Create an invoice line add vehicle.
    3 - Click to vehicle via the link
    4 - You will see fleet model and try to press to some smart buttons, traceback will occur (Odometer, Services...)

Bug cause:

    1 - When we press to smart buttons for Odometer or Services we are going to return_action_to_open function.
    2 - In this function corresponding action's xml id is calculated and we are calling that action and that will load some view.
    3 - self.env.context is passed directly as a context
    4 - In the view_move_form (That include invoice lines, account_id and vehicle_id fields), account_id has a context list_view_ref="account.view_account_list_from_entry"
    5 - This context is passed in self.env.context and that's why it tries to load this list_view when we press to odometer,service smart buttons, which shouldn't be the case.
    6 - In 19.1 this context is not in self.env.context because >=19.2 m2o_cell_with_extra_m2o_fields is used for account_id and account_id and vehicle_id fields are combined in the single cell.
    7 - That's why the context of account_id is passed to the vehicle page as well.

Bug solution:

    1 - In the return_action_to_open function I'm dropping the list_view_ref context and we can load the correct related views about odometer or service or other ones.

task - 6385611

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

`completeActiveField` crashes with "Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'activeFields')" when the `extra` argument carries a `.related` object but the target `activeField` does not have one.

This happens when a many2one field appears twice in the same view tree with different widget configurations — one plain, one with `relatedFields`. The concrete trigger:

1. `stock.picking.batch` has an x2many `picking_ids` whose inline list/kanban view contains `partner_id` as a plain many2one. `extractFieldsFromArchInfo` creates an activeField for `partner_id` with no `.related` property.

2. `website_sale_stock` inherits the `stock.picking` form view and adds a second `partner_id` node with `widget="pickup_location_many2one"`. That widget declares `relatedFields` (`pickup_location_data`), which `Field.parseFieldNode` converts into a synthetic `views.default`. When `extractFieldsFromArchInfo` processes the inline form view of `picking_ids`, the resulting activeField for `partner_id` gets a `.related` object from those fields.

3. `extractFieldsFromArchInfo` then merges the form view fields into the list view fields via `completeActiveFields`. For `partner_id` the field already exists in the list's activeFields (without `.related`), so `completeActiveField` is called. It checks `if (extra.related)` — true — then immediately accesses `activeField.related.activeFields`, which is undefined → crash.

The sibling function `patchActiveFields` already handles this exact scenario correctly:

    activeField.related = activeField.related || { activeFields: {}, fields: {} };

Apply the same defensive initialisation in `completeActiveField`.

Part-of: odoo/odoo#160187
Related: odoo/enterprise#59935
Related: odoo/upgrade#6315

Backport-of odoo/odoo@03c0d6F

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

Backport of b667cacb (odoo/odoo#276156), currently on master.

The guards of mark as read were only evaluated when requesting it, while the RPC itself goes through a sequential queue. A mark as read requested while another one was still in flight was thus executed later without any re-validation.

Under CI load, the bus sync of a previous mark as read can lag enough for a focus-triggered mark as read to legitimately pass its guards on stale state and be queued. When the user then clicked "Mark as Unread", the queued mark as read executed right after and reverted that explicit action on the server, and through the resulting bus push, on the client as well. In the meeting view tour, the unread badge of the Chat action then never showed "1":

    FAILED: [17/24] Tour discuss.meeting_view_public_tour
    Step .o-mail-Meeting [title='Chat']:has(.badge:contains(1))

The state guards are now re-validated when the queued call actually executes: the member must still exist, the messages must not have been read in the meantime, and the channel must not have been marked as unread since the call was requested. The newest persistent message is still captured at request time as it is the payload of the intent: messages that arrived later have not been validated as read by the caller, their own triggers request another mark as read when appropriate.

https://runbot.odoo.com/odoo/error/941491

Problem:
When posting expenses, if the expense domain is set as mandatory in any of the analytic plans, users can still submit expenses without entering an analytic distribution. This only happens when the expense is auto-approved on submission, which happens when the expense's employee is also the expense's manager or when the employee doesn't have an expense manager.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Create an analytic plan with optional default applicability
2. Add an applicability rule with the domain set as Expense and set its applicability as mandatory.
3. Create a new expense
4. Set the expense's manager the same as the expense's employee.
5. Don't enter any analytic distribution.
6. Submit the expense
7. Notice how the expense is submitted and auto-approved without any error, even though no analytic distribution is entered and the analytic plan has a mandatory rule for expenses.

Cause:
The validation of the analytic distribution was only triggered on the approval of the expense, but when the expense is auto-approved on submission, the validation is not triggered at all.

Solution:
Move the validation of the analytic distribution to the do_approve method, which gets called both when an expense is approved and when it's auto-approved on submission.

opw-6187340

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#270268

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install Contacts app
- Open any record
- Go to the chatter
- Create an activity with a description
- Duplicate the tab
- Go back to the initial tab
- Description doesn't appear anymore
- Refreshing shows it but will remove it from the other tab

**Issue:**
Behavior comes from the broadcasting of activity changes between tabs `new browser.BroadcastChannel("mail.activity.channel");`.

Computed fields are not recomputed on the receiver side after value insertion in `_onActivityBroadcastChannelMessage` (also related components are not (re)mounted, e.g. when a new activity is created the other tab doesn't show it without a refresh).

This means that `isNoteEmpty` keeps its default value `true` (added by `this.toData()`) and the `note` stays hidden here [1]:
```xml
<div t-if="!props.activity.isNoteEmpty" class="o-mail-Activity-note text-break" t-out="props.activity.note"/>
```

**Fix:**
Remove computed fields in activity `serialize` before broadcasting them to ensure they don't force the default value.

(note installing `calendar` in 19.3+ removes this issue due to [2] which overrides the condition on `isNoteEmpty`)

[1] https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/eb9f0658c3da1a9fef69f1cc1117c2d44f9d61b1
[2] https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/44e2c2c5ca07849fd8964140f3ca61122c47f0c6

opw-6247412

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276032
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275528

`_l10n_tr_nilvera_add_pdf_to_invoice` writes the response from `client.request('GET', '.../pdf')` directly into `ir.attachment.raw`. The Nilvera client sets `Accept: application/json` on the session and calls `response.json()` by default, so the returned value is a Python `str` holding the base64-encoded PDF body, not raw binary bytes.

The previous code wrote to the base64-aware `datas` field, which auto-decoded its input. An earlier fix switched to `raw` to work around a `binascii.Error` from Python 3.14's stricter base64 validation in the `datas` auto-decode path. That switch silently changed what ends up on disk (`datas` decodes its input, `raw` does not)

Storing that string in the binary `raw` field encodes it as UTF-8, so the file on disk ends up as the literal ASCII of the base64 text. The attachment is served as `application/pdf` but the browser receives base64 ASCII and cannot preview or download the PDF.

Call `b64decode(response)` before storing so the attachment contains the actual PDF bytes.

OPW-6302803

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#274501
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#270759

**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#276098
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262551

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Go to Website > Edit a page.
2. Add multiple Badges side by side.
3. Save the page.
4. Switch the website language, click on Edit/Translate and
translate the badges.
5. Save.

**Issue:**
After saving in translate mode, all badge elements are merged into
one.

**Why this happens:**
During save, `cleanForSave` triggers `mergeAdjacentInlines` on a
detached clone of the dirty element. This clone lacks all the css
styling, so `getComputedStyle` returns `""` for all padding/margin
on detached nodes. Consequently, `areSimilarElements` incorrectly
considers sibling `s_badge` spans as identical and merges them.

A recent fix (https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/91972ec2bbd85f9cfd7a1af794bbb2385a312f30) applied to `BadgeOptionPlugin` registers
`s_badge` as unsplittable via `unsplittable_node_predicates`,
preventing the merge in normal edit mode. However, translate mode
loads a separate plugin, `BadgeTranslationPlugin`, which was added
in the commit https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/cbb2eb2edfeecbc21a70c1a3cba81ad0a7ac9c75 that lacks the same predicate.

opw-6261146

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276040
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#273986

The "bus subscription is refreshed when channel is joined/left" tests were flaky:
- `mockDate` needs 2 digit date/time parts. The format used here didn't always produce them, so it silently fell back to a past date. That was enough to make the "left" test pass even without actually leaving.
- The "left" test never actually left the channel: a confirm dialog blocked it.
- The "join" test never actually joined the channel.
- The tests expected `runAllTimers` to guarantee that every initial subscription was done, but thats not the case, making the number of `subscribe` calls non-deterministic (e.g. flushing calls to `bus_service.add` but not ensuring the worker received them through its message port, and triggered the debounced `updateChannels`).

Fixing the tests exposed a real bug: `memberBusSubscription` is meant to trigger a refresh whenever membership changes relative to the bus start time. As a boolean, "member, no refresh needed" and "not a member" are indistinguishable (both `false`), so leaving a channel joined before the bus started never changed the value and never triggered a refresh.

This PR add a third state so membership and non-membership stay distinguishable regardless of when the bus started.

runbot-941462

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#276066
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275938

# 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#275699
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#274722

**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

…nding

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

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

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

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

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

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

opw-6314690

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275305

During the _run_average_batch(), we call _get_value() on each dropship move on which an AVCO product is used. In this function, if the following condition is met, we call the function _get_manual_value():

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/12dd03fb678870ddd3f1f8dca66aa3f934aa7985/addons/stock_account/models/stock_move.py#L359-L361

This method's goal is to search product.value records related to the current move.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/12dd03fb678870ddd3f1f8dca66aa3f934aa7985/addons/stock_account/models/stock_move.py#L431-L447

This search is performed once per move selected previously even if they are not related to any product.value.

We propose to cache the id of every move that is linked to at least one product.value to ensure the search method is only performed for those and potentially reduce the number of calls to the search method.

Benchmark
------------

Reducing the execution time with this modification supposes that the majority of stock.move records are not linked to any product.value, which is usually the case.
The following benchmark shows the execution times of _run_average_batch() depending on that.

| No stock.move | No of moves linked to product.value | Before PR | After PR |
|---------------|-------------------------------------|-----------|----------|
|           100 |                                  10 |    1.03 s |   421 ms |
|          1000 |                                 100 |    7.13 s |   1.14 s |
|         10000 |                                 100 |   57.21 s |   1.55 s |
|         10000 |                                1000 |   60.42 s |   8.98 s |

When every stock.move is linked to a product.value, the modification will introduce more operations than needed and slow down the execution. The following benchmark illustrates that.

| No stock.move | Before PR | After PR |
|---------------|-----------|----------|
|           100 |    1.14 s |   1.15 s |
|          1000 |    8.21 s |   8.37 s |
|         10000 |   80.64 s |  81.51 s |

opw-6050007

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#257619