Friday, July 17, 2026
5 changes · saas-18.4
Enhancements to existing features
Peruvian e-invoicing now includes the product classification codes required by SUNAT's upcoming 2026 validation rules. This helps businesses avoid rejected electronic invoices for affected goods once the new rules take effect.
Original PR description
SUNAT is updating its validation rules 2026-08-01, adding three mandatory annexes (25.1, 25.2, 25.3) to Product Catalog N25. E-invoices for these goods are rejected when the required UNSPSC code is not available in the database. Most of the required codes already exist and are active. The rest are handled here: two missing UNSPSC codes were added to the shared catalog, while the fourteen codes that exist but are inactive and the SUNAT-only code 11111111 (which is not part of the UNSPSC standard) are activated from the Peru localization instead. Doing the Peru-specific part in the l10n_pe_edi install hook and upgrade script, the way l10n_mx_edi and l10n_ke_edi_oscu do for their own codes, keeps these activations out of databases that do not use the Peruvian localization. Task-6366907 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124200 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123577
Resolved issues and error corrections
French VAT declarations now handle SIRET numbers entered with spaces, preventing avoidable submission failures. The process also checks bank account number formatting and warns users before sending if the details look incorrect.
Original PR description
This commit resolves an issue where VAT declarations failed when the provided SIRET number included spaces. Since check_siret verifies the format, we now strip all spaces from the input. Additionally, this commit introduces a validation for bank account numbers, ensuring that we warn the user if the account number is wrongly formatted. task-6253745 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124448 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120689
Invoices marked as excluded from follow-up are now also left out of follow-up email attachments and printed follow-up letters. This prevents customers from receiving documents for invoices the business intentionally removed from follow-up communications.
Original PR description
Steps to reproduce: 1. Install Accounting and create an invoice for a customer which has a due date in the past 2. Make sure the payment term for the invoice is "Immediate Payment" and Send the…
Steps to reproduce: 1. Install Accounting and create an invoice for a customer which has a due date in the past 2. Make sure the payment term for the invoice is "Immediate Payment" and Send the invoice. 3. Open the contact form and click on the Customer Statement smart button 4. Exclude the invoice using the 'No Follow-Up' toggle 5. In the Accounting tab in the contact form, click on send 6. Open the internal link of the Content Template, go to the options tab and select 'Print Follow-up Letter' in Dynamic Reports 7. Save the configuration and send the email Issue: Excluded invoices still appeared as PDF attachments in the follow-up email and were merged into the printed follow-up letter PDF. Why this happens: Both `default_get` in `account_followup.manual_reminder` and `_get_invoices_to_print` in `res.partner` traversed `unreconciled_aml_ids` without filtering out lines where `no_followup = True`, so excluded invoices were included regardless. opw-6310602 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124541 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#122249
This fix prevents an unrelated screen filter from interfering when payment documents are updated for Mexican electronic invoices. It avoids an error that could block users from updating payments after reconciling invoices, improving reliability in the accounting workflow.
Original PR description
Issue: The `default_type` context can leak into documents creation with invalid values (e.g., 'sale' for documents.document.type), causing a ValueError. Steps to reproduce: - Use a Mexican company with CFDI credentials configured. - Install the documents_account module and create a folder for journals where you will place customer payments. - Create an invoice with "payment policy = PPD", and send it to CFDI. - Create a bank transaction and reconcile it with the invoice. - Go to the Accounting Dashboard, remove current filters, and group by "Type" (this injects default_type into the context). - From there, enter the "Sales" journal and open the invoice. - Click on the "Update Payments" button. - Result: `ValueError: Wrong value for documents.document.type: 'sale'` Fix: Clean context from the `default_*` keys when creating the attachment of the document. opw-6141172 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124074
Resetting a submitted tax return no longer removes the global tax lock date for everyone. This keeps closed VAT periods protected while still allowing authorized users to use temporary lock-date exceptions when corrections are needed.
Original PR description
To reproduce the issue: 1) Initialize a company in Belgium, create the tax returns 2) Submit the VAT return from January 3) Open the lock date wizard. The tax lock date is January 31st. 4) Add a lock…
To reproduce the issue:
1) Initialize a company in Belgium, create the tax returns 2) Submit the VAT return from January
3) Open the lock date wizard. The tax lock date is January 31st. 4) Add a lock date exception removing the tax lock date just for you, for 5 min. 5) Reset January's return
6) Reopen the lock date wizard.
====> Your exception is still there, but the tax lock date for everyone has been reset to December 31st.
This is plain wrong. Resetting a return should not automatically reopen the period for everyone. Lock dates exceptions/modifications are anyway required to reset the return ; they should pilot the whole flow. Nothing being magically hidden from the user means there can't be someone else mistakenly encoding something into the reopened period.
Another fix was required to make this one work: setting the tax lock date before submitting the return should work. In bigger environments, users might want to do that as a first step to reduce the number of people encoding data before actually doing the submission of the return. Therefore, the case where the tax lock date is already set at the date_to of the return when submitting it was supposed to be already supported, and allow the creation of the closing entry for that return, despite it being on the tax lock date. The test ensuring this was however badly written, and the feature didn't work: the closing was created at a later date than the lock date automatically, due to the Bills' Algorithm.