Steps to reproduce:
- install Timesheets
- create an employee for a user in company B
- switch to company A (where the user has no employee)
- the systray icon is hidden even though the user can
create timesheets in company B via the company selector

Current behavior:
the systray only checks the current company for a valid
employee, ignoring other selected companies.

Expected behavior:
the systray should be visible whenever the user can create
timesheets i.e. when they have an active employee in any
of the selected companies.

Issue:
the check used a stored boolean on `res.partner` that has no
company scope and becomes stale when an employee is archived
(the stored dependency does not re-fire). the timesheet
creation logic checks all selected companies for active
employees, but the systray did not mirror that.

Fix:
use `employee_ids` a `One2many` that checks all selected
companies and excludes archived employees, matching the
timesheet creation logic exactly.

task-6330539

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#121730

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

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-6215466

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124567
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#122313

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#124370
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123190

### Steps to reproduce:

- Open the Todo app
- In the editor, insert the following content: `<p>a</p><div class="oe_unbreakable"><br></div><p>b</p>`
- Double-click the empty unbreakable node
- Open the color picker and hover over a color
- Toolbar and color picker get closed

### Root cause:

- Hovering a color in an empty unbreakable node replaces the `<br>` with a `<font data-oe-zws-empty-inline>` containing a ZWS (`\u200b`). This triggers a selectionchange where `isToolbarVisible()` finds no `<br>` and no visible text, returns false, and closes the toolbar — which reverts the preview, reopens the toolbar, and causes a flicker loop.

### Solution:

- Instead of calling `fillEmpty()` (which inserts a ZWS placeholder) on empty blocks containing `<br>` preserve the `<br>` element by appending it directly inside the `<font>` tag which keeps toolbar open.

task-6312933

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276776
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#271507

[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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276167

**Description of the problem**
The age verification popup snippet (`s_age_verification_popup`) does not work properly when dropped into the `#product_details` element of a product page. In particular, the popup is rendered below the blurred background and cannot be interacted with (it should be rendered above the blur instead).

**How to reproduce**
1. Open a product page.
2. Drop `s_age_verification_popup` into the product details.
3. The popup is rendered below the blurred background.

**Why the problem happens**
The `s_age_verification_popup` snippet applies the blur effect to the `#wrapwrap` element. The popup is expected to be rendered above the blur thanks to its `z-index`.
However, `z-index` only applies within the same stacking context. A child element cannot be rendered above elements outside its parent's stacking context, regardless of how high its own `z-index` is. Since `#product_details` has a defined `z-index`, it creates a stacking context. As a result, the popup, which is a child of `#product_details`, is rendered below the blur element.

**Fix**
This commit adds an SCSS rule to `#product_details` so that it no longer creates a stacking context when it contains an open age verification popup. To prevent the stacking context from being created, `z-index` is set to `auto` and `position` to `relative`.

task-6358990

**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

\* : 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#275693
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#199193

Step to reproduce:
- install l10n_sa_edi_pos in fresh db, make sure to have a saudi arabia company
- go to sales journal -> zatca page (journal should not be onboarded_
- open pos and make a sale -> print receipt

Observaton:
- in receipt notice a label "This is not a legal document"
- such labels should only appear when we are on phase 2 i.e. we onboard journal

Cause:
- after the commit [1] we removed dependency b/w account_edi and l10n_sa
- Also, visibilty of label dependends on
 - `l10n_sa_not_legal` , `code_sa` and  `l10n_gcc_is_settlement`
- here we never checked, which phase we are in [1] https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/1c463a4d5b513fcf17a9ea0ea26bf50f68102193

fix:
- we keep track, if config's journal is onboarderd or not (by presense of csid)
and only then we decided to print label (if applicable)

Before:

<img width="1829" height="1040" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/581923c0-513c-45dc-8b77-6ab171dc0522" />


After:
<img width="1827" height="1037" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/dfdfde21-c17d-4468-9629-9ac1fd6d691c" />


opw-6317777

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

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:

- 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

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

**Steps to reproduce:**
- create storable avco product
- set the cost to 10 
- set an onhand quantity of 100 in WH/stock
- create another warehouse (if you don't already 
have another one)
- create an internal transfer from WH/Stock 
to WH2
- open the 'stock' view 
- click on inventory at date 
- confirm

**Current behavior:**
the total value is 11.000

**Expected behavior:**
total value should be 10.000

**Cause of the issue:**
To compute the total_value of the product, 
_compute_value calls _run_average_batch
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/68f258e99f42693131a5309b3606c3b95f93d824/addons/stock_account/models/product.py#L260
Inside run_average_batch we need the qty_available 
at the time of last manual value (which is when 
we set the cost to 10 manually) in order to value 
all this quantity at the value of the manual value.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/68f258e99f42693131a5309b3606c3b95f93d824/addons/stock_account/models/product.py#L435

This qty should be 0 cause we had no onhand quantity 
when we set the cost to 10. 
But it's actually going to be 10, here is why : 

Inside _compute_quantities_dict, because we're 
asking for a quantity in the past, the computation is 
current quantity - quantities that went in between 
the date in the past and now + quantities that went 
out between the date in the past and now. 
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/154b49ec6be6230989ee4eb420e7f83b681ff520/addons/stock/models/product.py#L255
So we should have : 100 - 100 (moves_in_res_past) + 0 
(moves_out_res_past) = 0
because we have 100 now and between the date 
we're asking for (the time of the manual value) and 
now there is one move in (when we set a quantity of 100) 
and no move out.

But moves_out_res_past will actually be 10 for our product
instead of 0. 
That's because in the read_group, our internal move 
will be considered as a move out and be taken into account 
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/60cf607d7148ebe389cc8513aa3b82e156cd4400/addons/stock/models/product.py#L233-L234

That's because: 
When we called _run_average_batch from 
_compute_value, we called it on 'products_to_value', 
which is based on 'products', which was computed 
calling with_valuation_context() 
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/60cf607d7148ebe389cc8513aa3b82e156cd4400/addons/stock_account/models/product.py#L206
which passes the valued internal location in the context
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/60cf607d7148ebe389cc8513aa3b82e156cd4400/addons/stock_account/models/product.py#L366-L370
As wh2 is not internal (it's a view) it's not included in the locations 
from the context.
strict is also set to True

Therefore at the beginning of compute_quantities_dict, 
when we call _get_domain_location to compute 
domain_move_out_loc (on which domain_move_out_done 
will be based),
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/60cf607d7148ebe389cc8513aa3b82e156cd4400/addons/stock/models/product.py#L165
inside _get_domain_location, because a location is 
given in the context that's the one we're going to use. 
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/60cf607d7148ebe389cc8513aa3b82e156cd4400/addons/stock/models/product.py#L365
and because strict is in the context, dest_location_domain_out
will be "location_dest_id not in [the list of valued location 
which does not include wh2]".
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/7e95d32d669a7ee7c50b5e665697cb577be0af93/addons/stock/models/product.py#L402-L405
And back in compute_quantities_dict(), 
domain_move_out_loc will be "location_id in [the list 
of valued location] and location_dest_id not in 
[the list of valued location]".
Our internal move will therefore be considered 
as an out move and taken into account in the computation
mentioned above.

Which explains why quantity will be 10 inside 
run_average_batch and why the computation 
of total_value is wrong

**fix:**
in 19.0 the fix is in the xml to take less risk 
with regards to stable policy, however starting 
from 19.1 the fix will be in python
opw-6321636

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275384
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#273388

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:
- 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

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#276763
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#273129