This PR introduces an improvement to the account and l10n_latam_check modules that allows for multiple liquidity lines (one per check) to be recorded in a single journal entry. Currently, a split journal entry is created for each liquidity line, which presents several disadvantages:
   - Incorrect computation of payment and invoice states
   - Simplified workflow: By using a single journal entry for all liquidity lines, the workflow is significantly simplified and accounting complexity is reduced.
   - First step towards a refactor: This improvement is a first step towards a broader refactor that will allow adapting the own check flow in payment registration without the need to create journal entries.

Changes made:
   - Enhanced _synchronize_to_moves() method: - Allows for the creation and update of multiple liquidity lines within a single journal entry. - Removes excess liquidity lines if _prepare_move_line_default_vals() returns fewer lines than currently exist. - Account type-based counterparty identification: Replaces the previous position-based identification with an approach based on account types. - The starting index for extra line values is now dynamic, determined by the number of liquidity lines

   - Removed _l10n_latam_check_split_move method:
       - This method is no longer necessary given the new implementation that supports multiple liquidity lines in a single journal entry.
   - Modified _prepare_move_line_default_vals() method: - Now returns one liquidity line for each registered own check, simplifying the generation of journal entries.
   - Preserved _l10n_latam_check_unlink_split_move() method:
       - Maintained for backward compatibility purposes, allowing payments containing split moves to be set to draft status.

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

**Issue:**

Envia API documentation is very bad. When trying to generate an Amazon Ground shipping with Envia, the API will sometimes reject the payload with the following error:

`Total items weight exceeds package weight. Please refer to API documentation for allowable limits. (D-703)`

Even though the [Envia documentation](https://docs.envia.com/reference/create-shipping-label) doesn't include it, it seems that Amazon requires the weight for each product. If the payload doesn't include the per-item weight, Amazon will set a default weight, which will cause the error to show up if the delivery contains a high quantity. This can be a blocking issue for some customers.

**Steps to reproduce on a fresh DB:**

- Install Inventory, Sales, and Envia Shipping
- Switch company to be based in India (need to provide an address to deliver from, I just used the Odoo India address - InfoCity Gate, Gandhinagar, Gujarat 382007)
- Configure an Amazon delivery carrier with Envia (India seems to be the only country that supports Amazon with Envia)
	- Inventory > Configuration > Delivery Methods > Envia.com method
	- Must be in a Production environment (because Envia's sandbox server does not work for some reason?)
	- Add an Envia Production Access Token (will have to use one with some funds)
	- Change 'Ship From' to India
	- Configure the `Envia.com Service Name`, set Carrier and Service to AMAZON and AMAZON - Amazon Shipping Standard
- Create a demo product, give it an arbitrary weight like 0.1 kg
- Create a sales order to an Indian customer, include the demo product with a high quantity (like 20), confirm (might have to create a warehouse and configure the customer's information)
- On the generated picking, set the Carrier to Envia.com on the Additional Info tab
- When trying to Validate, it should throw the error

**Fix:**
When generating the payload in _get_shipping_lines() in envia_request, include the item weight in the dictionary.

Related ticket: opw-6261682

### Steps to reproduce:

- In the settings enable: Multi-Steps Routes and rental transfers
- Unarchive the MTO route
- Create a rental product P with a buy route and a set vendor
- Create a rental order for 1 x P and set the the MTO route on the sol
- Confirm the order
#### > The delivery as well as the purchase for 1 unit of P was generated but the return was not.

### Cause of the issue:

The procurement generated to handle both the delivery and the return rental picking are handled by the `_create_procurements`: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/b0e48baaf99bdc4faefd2ffdd3bd5637fb548593/sale_stock_renting/models/sale_order_line.py#L353-L374 The `route_ids` set and used is the `mto_route` set on the sol: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0f061503e26ac8c441d62d91947419119e48c47a/addons/sale_stock/models/sale_order_line.py#L415-L422 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0f061503e26ac8c441d62d91947419119e48c47a/addons/sale_stock/models/sale_order_line.py#L282-L297
However, in the present case, the mto  route does not contain any rule with a relevant `location_src_id` in the rental location so that the return will not be generated.

opw-6361322

## Problem

When generating an export CFE (e-Factura Exportación) in the Uruguayan EDI module, invoices that include a discount line equal to the subtotal — resulting in a **total of 0.00** — were not handled correctly by the XML/CFE generation
logic.

This use case is valid and required by exporters who need to reflect the declared value of goods/services while invoicing at zero (e.g. to comply with customs or incoterm requirements such as FCA). In Uruware's validation portal, the "Descuentos y Recargos" (discounts & surcharges) section of the subtotal block must be correctly populated for the CFE to be accepted.

**Example:** An invoice with a line of 648.00 UYU and a global discount of −648.00 UYU → Total: 0.00. The export value is still declared, taxes are zero, but the CFE must reflect the discount amount explicitly.

<img width="592" height="679" alt="example_expo_invoice_discount" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/aa83c158-e342-4da5-a251-fc209bbed5c4" />

## Root Cause

The CFE template (`cfe_template.xml`) and the move computation logic (`account_move.py`) did not account for the case where export invoices carry line-level or global discounts that zero out the total. The discount amount was
either omitted from the XML nodes or computed incorrectly, causing Uruware validation to fail or the discount block to not render.

## Fix

- **`l10n_uy_edi/models/account_move.py`** — Updated the export invoice computation to correctly include discount amounts in the CFE data dict, ensuring the `ValorDR` is filled with the value of the discount per line.
- **`l10n_uy_edi/views/cfe_template.xml`** — Adjusted the template condition so `MntExpoyAsim` node accepts 0 as value.

## Steps to Reproduce (before fix)

1. Create an export invoice (e-Factura Exportación) for a foreign partner.
2. Add a product line with a unit price, e.g. 216.00 × 3 = 648.00 UYU.
3. Add a global discount of 648.00 (same amount) so the total is 0.00.
4. Confirm and send to Uruware — the CFE is rejected / discount block is missing.

## Verification

After the fix, the same invoice generates a valid CFE accepted by Uruware with the discount correctly reflected in the `DscRcgGlobal` node and the discount line visible on the printed document.

Users cannot navigate to the next page in the message list view when hidden records cause the current page to appear incomplete.

### Steps to reproduce

1. Create many messages, ensuring some are hidden from a specific user via access rules.
2. Open the message list view as that user.
3. Pagination incorrectly shows a total matching the current page (e.g., "1-68 / 68") instead of the full count (e.g., "1-80 / 5000+").
4. Because the system believes all records are displayed, the "Next" page button is disabled, leaving the user stuck on the current page despite more records existing in the database.

### Cause

The `mail.message` model filters records in Python after fetching them from the database to enforce complex access rules.

1. The system queries the database for a batch of records up to the view's limit.
2. The `_search` method removes inaccessible records from this batch.
3. The web client receives fewer records than the requested limit.
4. Interpreting this as the end of the dataset, the web client skips the count query and displays the current batch size as the total.

### Fix

Add `'force_search_count': 1` to the action context. This forces the web client to execute a separate count query to determine the total number of records, regardless of the batch size returned.

opw-5425361

When searching on the Website site, using the main search on the navbar, it opens a list view with the results (`website.list_hybrid`) which raises the warning on the logs (2 times):
"Unknown directives or unused attributes: {'t-key'} in website.list_hybrid"

![Task 79454 - Issue 434 - Image of Warnings](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/f5a3100b-c617-4c38-a8b5-f42427a4317c)

This happens after the attribute `t-key` was added to the template [\[1\]] because the template is only used in QWeb. The validation for them doesn't include the `t-key` [\[2\]] as one of the "iter_directives" nor has a `_compile_directive_*` method to check and remove it from the validation as it's done with the `t-as` and `t-foreach`.

This also causes the raise of the warnings on tours that use the tour method `searchProduct` (of the module `website_sale`) because it uses the first input with the name of search and happens to be the search on the navbar.

![Task 79454 - Issue 434 - Search Input](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/923f5d63-5cfb-4c0b-a563-0eabc04882bb)

[\[1\]]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/7b1d82aa
[\[2\]]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f52cfb09/odoo/addons/base/models/ir_qweb.py#L1400

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#179017

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------------
1. Install hr_timesheet and create a second company (e.g., Company B).
2. Create a global project (no company assigned) with timesheets enabled.
3. Share the project with edit access to a portal user belonging to Company A.4
4. Create a task, switch to Company B, and log a timesheet on the task.
5. Log in as the portal user and try to access the project.

Issue:
-------
An `Access to unauthorized or invalid companies exception` is raised,
preventing the portal user from accessing a project they are legitimately shared on.

Cause:
----------
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b7b3292b6a46c3dbc17aeee0183df0af318bf810/addons/project/controllers/portal.py#L159-L173 During `_prepare_project_sharing_session_info`, hr_timesheet overrides the company determination logic through `_get_project_sharing_company()`. https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b7b3292b6a46c3dbc17aeee0183df0af318bf810/addons/hr_timesheet/controllers/project.py#L13-L18

For global projects, the company is derived from an existing timesheet if one exists. As a result, creating a timesheet in another company causes that company to be injected into the sharing session as the current company.

Since the portal user does not have access to that company, opening the project triggers an access error.

Solution:
----------
Remove the `_get_project_sharing_company()` override. The base implementation already falls back to the portal user's own company when the project has no company assigned, ensuring the sharing session only contains companies the portal user is allowed to access.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b7b3292b6a46c3dbc17aeee0183df0af318bf810/addons/project/controllers/portal.py#L141-L142 
This allows portal users from Company A to continue accessing global projects without errors.

opw-6253960



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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#272161

For a logged-in user, some form fields are automatically prefilled from
their profile, such as a "Phone" field with their phone number.

**Issue:**
The prefill configuration is always preserved when we change options of
a field. While this is correct when updating few options, but it also
happens after the field is repurposed, causing it to inherit a prefill
value intended for a different field.

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Edit the /contactus page's form.
- Change the "Name" field's type to a "URL" or "CC" field.
- Save the changes.
- The "URL/CC" field is prefilled with the user's name.

A field is considered repurposed when:
- its type is changed (e.g. from "Phone" to "URL");
- a custom field is converted into an existing field.

**Fix:**
This commit preserves the prefill only when the field keeps the same
name and type. Otherwise, it clears the stale prefill so repurposed
fields no longer inherit incorrect values.

task-[5976747](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project/974/tasks/5976747)

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275812

Before this commit, validating transfers of several companies at once could assign a lot of one company to the move lines of another one, because the search for existing lots used a variable left over from a previous loop (the last move line iterated) instead of the company of the group of lines being checked.

Steps to reproduce:
- in a multi-company database, create a product tracked by lots
- create a lot with the same name for that product in each company
- create one receipt per company with that lot name typed in the detailed operations, select both receipts in the Transfers list view and validate them together

The lines of one company are linked to the lot of the other company and the validation is blocked by "Incompatible companies on records". When the lot only exists in one of the companies, the search misses it and the validation fails on the lot uniqueness constraint while recreating a lot that already exists.

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

**Problem:**
After partially invoicing a timesheet-delivered sale order line, a second invoice for the remaining delivered quantity can no longer be created.

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Install Sales and Timesheets
2. Sell a service invoiced on delivered timesheets
3. Log a timesheet covering the whole period
4. Create an invoice, reduce its quantity to part of the delivered amount, and post it
5. Create an invoice again for the rest

**Current behavior:**
"Cannot create an invoice. No items are available to invoice." is raised, even though qty_delivered - qty_invoiced is still positive.

**Expected behavior:**
A second invoice is created for the remaining delivered quantity.

**Cause of the issue:**
Since opw-6001094, `_recompute_qty_to_invoice` runs on every invoice creation, not only when a timesheet period is provided. It re-derives `qty_to_invoice` from un-invoiced timesheets alone. Posting the first invoice already linked every timesheet of the line (the linking ignores the invoiced quantity), so no un-invoiced timesheet is left, and `qty_to_invoice` is forced to 0 — discarding the still-billable remainder.

**Fix:**
Forcing the quantity to zero is only meaningful when the invoice is restricted to a timesheet period, where a line whose timesheets all fall outside that period genuinely has nothing to invoice. Without a period, the standard delivered-versus-invoiced quantity is the authoritative measure of what remains to bill, so the timesheet-based recomputation must not override it.

opw-6295941