In multicompany, it can happen that one company (let's call it company Origin) cannot handle a payment method in their country, so it uses another company's (company MoneyHandler), even if it's in another country. The accounting flows must be then adjusted:

- In company Origin, the invoice must be matched by a clearing entry
- In company MoneyHandler, payment must match its move (if it exists) with a clearing entry. The payment move doesn't exist if `account_accountant` is installed but no Outstanding account is configured on the payment method line.

Same but opposite thing must happen for credit notes in company Origin that match a reimbursement in company MoneyHandler.

Cancellation of a payment must be reflected on the entries: deleting when feasible, reversing when not (unless a lock date/hash is present, which would block the cancellation)

_(To do: testing/review, credit note, cancellation/reversal of the payment)_

Task [link](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project.task/6037525)
task-6037525

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#259197

## 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" />

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119283

Currently, users encounter a traceback when clicking the "Load a Template" button in the WYSIWYG article helper if the article is linked to an audit report and has no parent article.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Install `accountant_knowledge`.
2. Create and open a new audit report.
3. Delete all content from article (the root).
4. Click the "Load a Template" button in the helper.

=> Crash with `AssertionError: Invalid falsy real id.`

The issue occurs because the method responsible for loading the annex to display (see: `get_suggested_templates`) expects at least one record in the recordset. When the article has no parent, the recordset is empty, causing the method to fail.

Before attempting to load a template, we will check whether the article has a parent article. If no parent exists, no template will be provided to the template picker. In that case, the picker will display a helper message indicating that no article template is available to load.

Task [link](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project.task/6333859)
Task-6333859

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#121807

The partner credit limit warning on quotations and customer invoices depends on which company the user is currently working in, instead of the company of the document itself.

Steps to reproduce:
- Enable Sale Credit Limit in the settings of My Company (San Francisco)
- Set a Credit Limit of 100 on a customer, e.g. Deco Addict
- Create a draft quotation of 500 for that customer => The credit limit warning banner is displayed, as expected
- Switch the active company to any other company, for example My Company (Chicago), keeping access to both companies
- Open the same quotation again => The warning banner is gone, although neither the quotation nor the
   customer changed

The credit fields used to build the warning are evaluated against the user's active company: credit_limit is a company-dependent field, and credit / credit_to_invoice are computed on the receivables of the current company. When the active company is not the document's company, the warning is checked against the wrong ledger and the wrong limit, so it can disappear on an over-limit customer or show up for a healthy one.

Both computes already contain the line that was meant to handle this, but the result of with_company() was discarded, making it a no-op. Assign it, as every other compute in these files already does, so the warning is always evaluated in the document's company.

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276308

\* : html_editor

Commit [1]:

Steps to reproduce: replacing image stuck issue when deleted
1. Go to Website > Edit.
2. Add any picture snippet (e.g., Text-Image).
3. Click the 'Replace' button and upload an image.
4. Open the media dialog again and delete the uploaded image.
5. Click the 'Discard' button.
6. Try to save the changes.

Issue:
- The website gets stuck in the same position and does not allow saving.
- In the Python terminal, a missing error warning appears because the image is deleted from both `ir.ui.view` and `ir.attachment`.

Expected behaviour:
- Saving should be allowed with a default image, that is similar to other images.

This commit catch the warning response and replaces the deleted image, allowing the website to save changes without getting stuck.

Commit [2]: resolve traceback when leaving edit mode via browser

Steps to reproduce:
1. Go to Website > Edit.
2. Open the snippet modal and select any snippet.
3. Press the 'Back' button in your browser.
4. A dialog will appear asking to discard changes; click 'OK'.
5. A traceback error occurs, and an empty space appears in the editor.

Issue:
- Previously, a commit addressed a similar scenario, but that time the browser had an event listener bind on hashchange.
- Now, that `hashchange` event of browser has been replaced with `popstate`, which triggers before the 'window' event listener.
- As a result, the editor is left in an unstable state, causing a traceback error.

Solution:
- This commit ensures the 'window' event executes before the browser event.
- It verifies if the editor is open and forces a `skipLoad`, preventing the `route_change` call in the browser.

task-4570164

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275334
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#199193

**Purpose of this PR:**

Before this PR, the Voice detection sensitivity indicator in call settings could get stuck showing the last detected level after clicking "Stop" right after "Test". The `AudioWorkletNode`'s port kept receiving tic messages briefly after `disconnect()`, since disconnecting only unroutes the audio graph and does not stop the worklet from posting pending messages.

<img width="546" height="73" alt="voice_test_bug" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/05a10d23-fe60-4a85-b906-bfec6d235ec5" />

Steps to reproduce:

1. Open Voice & Video Settings.
2. Start the Voice detection sensitivity test.
3. Quickly click Stop immediately after clicking Test.
4. It may take a few tries, but eventually the Voice detection sensitivity indicator remains stuck at the last detected level.

> [!NOTE]
>  this is timing-dependent. A tic message must already be in-flight from the worklet thread when `disconnect()` runs, so it won't happen every attempt.

This race condition existed in the `disconnect` callback of `_loadAudioWorkletProcessor` since #66611, but stayed silent until #183969 introduced the Voice detection sensitivity feature in call settings, exposing it.

This PR clears `port.onmessage` before disconnecting so late tic messages can no longer update the Voice detection sensitivity indicator after monitoring has stopped.

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275933

When a push subscription is renewed by the browser (typically every few days), the pushsubscriptionchange event fires and the service worker attempts to re-register the new subscription endpoint via register_devices(). However, the VAPID public key was missing from the request kwargs.

The server-side register_devices() always validates the VAPID key first and raises InvalidVapidError when it is absent. This caused the renewed subscription to never be saved in the database, silently breaking push notifications after the first subscription renewal.

Fix by extracting the applicationServerKey from the new subscription's options and encoding it as a base64url string (without padding) — matching the existing logic in webclient.js _arrayBufferToBase64().

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

Current behavior before PR: Subscriptions don't get renewed causing push notifications to stop eventually.

Desired behavior after PR is merged: Subscriptions get renewed successfully.


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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276085
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275217

### Overview

The SMS Queue Manager cron throws a traceback in a multi company environment when processing sms's that belong to distinct companies.

### Changes

Before this commit, the _process_queue method tied to the cron was blindly batching sms's belonging to multiple companies without an sms_api context. The error results because the _send method that's called expects a singleton company when it tries to set the sms_api for the record set, but this isn't the case when the selected sms batch is multi company.

After this commit, the _process_queue method now follows the same pattern as the send method, grouping by sms_api / company within the batch, and eliminating the need to check for singleton, as all calls to _send will now have the sms_api context passed in.

### Steps to Reproduce on fresh 19.0 db:
1. Make sure sms / sms_twilio are installed.
2. Create two companies with their own SMS config.
3. Create two sms records, one with each company.
4. Ensure the state of the sms's is 'outgoing'.
5. Execute the SMS Queue Manager Cron. Observe the traceback: ValueError: Expected singleton...

opw-6371272

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276426

Problem: When importing XML files to generate vendor bills, the system uses UBL parser and assumes that the PriceAmount node needs to be divided by the BaseQuantity node to obtain the exact price unit. However, in Colombia, the DIAN treats the PriceAmount node as the exact price unit. This was not flagged in the system so the parser incorrectly divides the PriceAmount by BaseQuantity, resulting in negative discounts to be added to match the subtotal.

Solution: Extract the basis_qty logic into a helper method so
other localizations can override when needed.

Current behavior: When importing a Colombian XML with a product that has a BaseQuantity greater than 1, the PriceAmount gets incorrectly divided, resulting in negative discounts on the vendor bill.

Expected Behavior: When importing a Colombian XML with a product that has a BaseQuantity greater than 1, the PriceAmount gets parses as the exact unit price with no negative discounts applied.

Task [link](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project.task/6215466)
task-6215466

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276430
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#273129

Steps to reproduce:
- Go to Website
- Upload an image in the company logo (navbar)
- Open the website editor and click on the logo
- Open the image info panel

Current behavior:

When clicking on the website logo in the editor, the size shown is always a constant number ~5.9kB, regardless of the actual size of the uploaded logo. The correct size is visible in the browser DOM. This gives users the wrong impression that their image is being heavily compressed or losing quality when it isn't.

Reason:

When clicking the logo, the editor tries to find the original, unprocessed version of the image so it can support cropping and other edits. It does this by asking the server to match the image's URL to a stored attachment.

The website logo is served through a dynamic link
(`/web/image/website/<id>/logo/<name>`) that isn't tied to a regular attachment record the way normal content images are, since it isn't uploaded through the usual media picker. Because of this, the server can't find a matching original, and the editor is left without a valid image source to work with.

As a fallback, the editor tries to load a placeholder path instead of a real image. This request fails and silently resolves to Odoo's generic "image not found" placeholder. All further processing (and the size calculation) then happens on this small placeholder image instead of the actual logo, which is why the size shown never changes.

Fix:

When `get_image_info` does not return a usable `original`, `loadImageInfo` now falls back to using the image's own current src as `originalSrc`, instead of leaving it unset. This ensures `loadImage` always receives a valid, resolvable URL, so image processing (and the size shown) reflects the actual logo.

opw-6260496

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#273542

Version:
---------
- 19.0+

Steps to Reproduce:
-----------------------
1. Install sale_management, purchase, stock modules.
2. Create a storable product with Tracking: By Lot,
3. Create two Purchase Orders, each for 10 units.
   Receive PO-1 → 10 units with tagged as lot-1
   Receive PO-2 → 10 units with tagged as lot-2
4. Create two Sale Orders:
   SO-1 → deliver 2 units from lot-1 (validate)
   SO-2 → deliver 4 units from lot-2 (validate)
5. Open Inventory > Reporting > Stock,
   click "Total Value", then check the "Remaining Quantity" column

Issue:
-------
Observed : remaining_qty = 10 for lot-2 receipt, 4 for lot-1 receipt
Expected : remaining_qty = 8 for lot-1 receipt (10−2), 6 for lot-2 receipt (10−4)

Cause:
--------
When the "Remaining Quantity" column is computed, the following call
chain executes:

  stock.move._compute_remaining_qty()
    → calls product.product._get_remaining_moves()
        → calls product._run_fifo_get_stack()   ← HERE is the problem

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f4d079cc5a9c47672cf1a6747bb073e8e74f7350/addons/stock_account/models/product.py#L372

`_get_remaining_moves` calls `_run_fifo_get_stack()` with NO lot
argument. Inside `_run_fifo_get_stack`, because no lot is given, it
computes the stack size from the TOTAL product qty across all lots:

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f4d079cc5a9c47672cf1a6747bb073e8e74f7350/addons/stock_account/models/product.py#L583

  fifo_stack_size = 14   (10 received lot-1 + 10 received lot-2
                          − 2 delivered lot-1 − 4 delivered lot-2)

It then builds a domain to find incoming moves with NO lot filter:

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f4d079cc5a9c47672cf1a6747bb073e8e74f7350/addons/stock_account/models/product.py#L607

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f4d079cc5a9c47672cf1a6747bb073e8e74f7350/addons/stock_account/models/product.py#L614-L618

  ```Domain: [('is_in', '=', True), ('product_id', '=', X)]
  ↳ returns both receipts ordered:
      [lot-2 receipt (10 qty), lot-1 receipt (10 qty)]

then walks this list consuming `fifo_stack_size = 14`:
So it take: [move_lot1_receipt(10)]  First Lot

remaining_qty_on_first = min(10, 14) = 10 
after consuming fifo_stack_size →  14−10=4 left → move_lot1 gets 4
```
So back in `_get_remaining_moves`:

  qty_by_move = {
      lot-2 receipt → 10,   ← wrong (should be 6)
      lot-1 receipt →  4,   ← wrong (should be 8)
  }

- The root cause: `_run_fifo_get_stack` is designed for products that
have one shared FIFO stack. For lot-valuated products, each lot is an
independent inventory layer. Running a single combined stack mixes both
lots together, so the deductions (2 from lot-1, 4 from lot-2) are not
attributed to the correct receipt moves — the algorithm just consumes
from the oldest receipts first with no awareness of which lot was
actually delivered.

Fix:
-----
`_run_fifo_get_stack` already accepts a `lot=` argument that:
- sets `fifo_stack_size = lot.product_qty` (correct per-lot qty)
- adds `('move_line_ids.lot_id', 'in', lot.id)` to the domain
  so only the receipts that touched that specific lot are returned
The only missing piece was calling it per lot instead of once globally.

- With the fix, the stack for each lot is built correctly:
  lot-1: fifo_stack_size = 8 → lot-1 receipt remaining_qty = 8  ✓
  lot-2: fifo_stack_size = 6 → lot-2 receipt remaining_qty = 6  ✓

---

opw-6311341

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#272411

### Steps to reproduce:

- In the settings enable Multi-Steps route
- Unarchive the MTO route and set its production rule in MTSO
- Create 3 products: P1, P2 and COMP all using the MTO route
- Create 2 BOM's, one for P1 and one for P2: 1 X COMP
- Put 2 units of COMP in stock and add an empty bom (to trigger a child MO creation in case the MTSO route is triggered)
- Create and confirm a sale order for: 1 x P1 and 1 X P2
#### > An MO was generated for both product but P2 also generated a child MO for 1 unit of COMP instead of using the available unit

Cause of the issue:

The issue happens in the `_prepare_procurement_qty` which incorrectly assess that 1 unit of COMP will be required. The issue has been introduced by commit https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/e30fb722c00805e7226d2ee9e3e587b3c2204840 which introduced a dictionary to keep track of units of  products that will be used by the confirmation process of other concurrent mtso moves: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/71f0715bd5e29e976a1e8bfa7c4fa6e04735ebd7/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1683-L1689 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/71f0715bd5e29e976a1e8bfa7c4fa6e04735ebd7/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1712-L1715 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/71f0715bd5e29e976a1e8bfa7c4fa6e04735ebd7/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1810-L1814 
While by design this propagates the information used by other mtso moves in a common `_action_confirm` stack, the issue that we encounter is that this quantity is only relevant to be substracted to the free_qty when the unit is not yet reserved and hence already accounted negatively in `free_qty`. However, in the present case, confirming the receipt of P1 and P2 will confirm both moves simultaneously, triggering a common `_run_manufacture` to generate both an MO for P1 and for P2. At this point the dictionary `consumed_from_stock_dict` is shared in both MO's confirmation but since the MO's are confirmed sequentially rather than in batch:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/71f0715bd5e29e976a1e8bfa7c4fa6e04735ebd7/addons/mrp/models/stock_rule.py#L122-L125
The confirmation of the MO of P1 will update the `consumed_from_stock_dict` for 1 unit of COMP and will also reserve 1 unit of COMP before the MO of P2 is confirmed (and calls the `_prepare_procurement_qty`) to determine how many units of COMP are till available. This leads to the incorrect conclusion that 1 - 1 = 0 units are still available to fulfill the demand of P2.

opw-6370298

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275539

Before this commit:
- When importing a **UBL** or **Factur-X (CII)** invoice, Odoo determines whether the document should be imported as an invoice or a credit note based on the `TaxExclusiveAmount (UBL)` /` TaxBasisTotalAmount (Factur-X)`.
- In some rare cases, a valid invoice can contain a negative `TaxExclusiveAmount` / `TaxBasisTotalAmount` while still having a positive `TaxInclusiveAmount` / `GrandTotalAmount`. 
- In such situations, Odoo incorrectly imports the document as a credit note.

Technical reason:
- The method `_get_import_document_amount_sign()` uses `TaxExclusiveAmount` / `TaxBasisTotalAmount `to determine whether the imported document is an invoice or a refund.

After this commit:
- **UBL** now uses `TaxInclusiveAmount` instead of `TaxExclusiveAmount`, and **Factur-X** now uses `GrandTotalAmount `instead of `TaxBasisTotalAmount` to determine whether the document should be imported as an invoice or a credit note.
- Prevent valid invoices with negative `TaxExclusiveAmount` / `TaxBasisTotalAmount` from being incorrectly converted into credit notes.

Task-6321262

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276307
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#271829

Steps to reproduce:
- Create a promotions program with a rule granting 1 point per currency unit spent (minimum 2 items and 50.00 spent) and a reward "10% discount on the cheapest product" for 1 point
- Open a PoS session and add 2 products to trigger the program
- Keep adding products to the order

Issue:
A new "10% on the cheapest product" line is added for every product added. In eCommerce and Sales the discount is only applied once.

Cause:
The rule grants far more points than the reward costs, so the reward remains claimable after being applied. The auto-claim loop of `updateRewards` therefore re-applies it on every order change, stacking one discount line per change. The already-applied check in `getClaimableRewards` only covered 'coupons' programs, while `_get_claimable_rewards` in sale_loyalty also skips discount rewards already present on the order lines.

Solution:
When auto-claiming, skip discount rewards that are already applied on the order, unless they belong to a payment program (ewallet, gift card). The reward can still be claimed manually several times through the Reward button by spending more points.

opw-6380421

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276300

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
- Install `mrp` and `sale_management` modules
- Enable Units of Measure from settings
- Create a storable product configured as a Kit:
  - Set UoM to Units
  - Add component and it's UoM in Kg in Product form.
- Create and confirm a Sales Order with the kit product
- Validate the generated delivery order
- Print the delivery slip

Issue:
------
The delivery slip correctly displays component quantities in Kg,
but also shows an additional converted quantity in Units (e.g., 1000 Units),
which is incorrect and misleading.

Cause:
------
During sale order confirmation, the following flow is executed:
`action_confirm → _action_confirm → _action_launch_stock_rule → _prepare_procurement_values`

In `_prepare_procurement_values`, the `packaging_uom_id` is set from the
sale order line UoM (Units) and propagated to the generated stock move:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/647febbf46160c000bf11af8325cc80d0916eb67/addons/sale_stock/models/sale_order_line.py#L296

When the delivery (picking) is created, kit components generate stock moves where:
- `product_uom` is defined in the component’s UoM (e.g., Kg)
- `packaging_uom_id` remains in Units (inherited from the sale order line)

While generating the delivery slip, `_get_aggregated_product_quantities`
computes `packaging_quantity` using `packaging_uom_id`:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/647febbf46160c000bf11af8325cc80d0916eb67/addons/stock/models/stock_move_line.py#L888

In Mrp this calls the template:
`stock_report_delivery_aggregated_move_lines`
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/647febbf46160c000bf11af8325cc80d0916eb67/addons/mrp/report/report_deliveryslip.xml#L60


In this template, a condition renders packaging quantities when
`packaging_uom_id` differs from `product_uom`. As a result, quantities are
converted from the component UoM (Kg) into the packaging UoM (Units).

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/647febbf46160c000bf11af8325cc80d0916eb67/addons/stock/report/report_deliveryslip.xml#L261

For kit components, this conversion is not meaningful and leads to incorrect
values (e.g., Kg → Units resulting in 1000 Units), causing misleading output
in the delivery slip.

Fix:
----

Add a `_compute_packaging_uom_id` override in `sale_mrp` and
`purchase_mrp` that resets `packaging_uom_id` back to
the component's own `product_uom` whenever the move originates from a
phantom BoM line, without touching `sale_line_id`/`purchase_line_id`
themselves.

<details>
  <summary>Click here to see the results:</summary>

  <p><strong>Before:</strong></p>
  <div class="image-row">
    <img src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/5d8b2154-d794-4ce4-90a6-1a0aeaca8604" />
  </div>

  <p><strong>After:</strong></p>
  <div class="image-row">
    <img src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/79d708de-19e3-452d-9033-322a297c38e9" />
  </div>
</details>

---

opw-6136928

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262705

The `account_journal_type.bank` KPI (surfaced by the Databases app as `account_journal_type_bank`, tooltip "Draft entries in journal Bank") is meant to report journal entries in bank journals that still need attention: drafts, posted-but-unchecked entries, and posted bank entries that are not yet reconciled.

The "not yet reconciled" case was implemented as:

    ```LEFT JOIN account_bank_statement_line st_line
           ON move.statement_line_id = st_line.id
    AND (st_line.id IS NULL OR NOT st_line.is_reconciled)```

`st_line.id IS NULL` does not only match unreconciled bank transactions, it also matches any posted move booked directly in a bank journal that never originated from an imported bank statement line (manual entries, bank fees, opening balances, ...). Those moves have no `statement_line_id` by design and can never be reconciled, so they were counted as "pending" forever, permanently inflating the KPI for any database with such entries.

Only require an actual bank statement line before flagging it as unreconciled, matching the logic already used for the "to reconcile" count on the journal dashboard (account_journal_dashboard.py).

opw-6199785





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

`qty_available` is by default not computed with sudo, while the `total_value` is. This means that in `_update_standard_price`, the customer configuration can have a negative impact on the standard_price compute.

For example, if a user create a custom rule so that specific users have access to specific warehouses only, compute `total_value / qty_available` can actually mean `global_total_value / partial_qty_available`, which creates an aberrant standard price.

To fix this issue, the _update_standard_price must be done in sudo.

OPW-6243363

---

## Test result without fix
```
2026-06-17 12:24:50,810 47572 ERROR oes_test_19 odoo.addons.stock_account.tests.test_stockvaluation: FAIL: TestStockValuation.test_update_standard_price_with_limited_access_users
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/odoo/Odoo/src/19.0/odoo/addons/stock_account/tests/test_stockvaluation.py", line 3624, in test_update_standard_price_with_limited_access_users
    self.assertEqual(product.standard_price, 1.0)
AssertionError: 12.11111111111111 != 1.0
 ```

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#270559

Steps to reproduce:
- Create a partner without pincode
- Create a picking and Challan for that partner
- Click print

Will result in the following traceback-
```py
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<1103>", line 710, in template_l10n_in_ewaybill_report_ewaybill_1103
  File "<1103>", line 692, in template_l10n_in_ewaybill_report_ewaybill_1103_content
  File "<1103>", line 674, in template_l10n_in_ewaybill_report_ewaybill_1103_t_call_0
  File "<1103>", line 86, in template_l10n_in_ewaybill_report_ewaybill_1103_t_call_1
  File "/home/odoo/odoo18/community/addons/l10n_in_ewaybill/models/l10n_in_ewaybill.py", line 727, in _ewaybill_generate_direct_json
    **self._prepare_ewaybill_base_json_payload(),
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/odoo18/community/addons/l10n_in_ewaybill_stock/models/l10n_in_ewaybill.py", line 289, in _prepare_ewaybill_base_json_payload
    ewaybill_json = super()._prepare_ewaybill_base_json_payload()
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/odoo18/community/addons/l10n_in_ewaybill/models/l10n_in_ewaybill.py", line 669, in _prepare_ewaybill_base_json_payload
    **prepare_details(
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/odoo18/community/addons/l10n_in_ewaybill/models/l10n_in_ewaybill.py", line 641, in prepare_details
    f"{place}{key}": fun(partner, place) if key == "StateCode" else fun(partner)
                                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/odoo18/community/addons/l10n_in_ewaybill/models/l10n_in_ewaybill.py", line 674, in <lambda>
    "Pincode": lambda p: int(p.zip) if p.country_id.code == "IN" else 999999,
                         ^^^^^^^^^^
ValueError: invalid literal for int() with base 10: ''
```
In this commit, we resolve the traceback


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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276180