Steps to reproduce:
- Set the user language to Dutch.
- Go to Accounting > Reporting > Annual Statements.
- Generate the XBRL export for a report other than the "company,
  abridged" (acon) balance sheet/P&L combination, e.g. an association
  (asso_a/asso_f) or "company, full"/"company, capital" report.
- Open the file: the `<met:bln1>` boolean facts are exported as
  "onwaar" instead of "false", which is not a valid XBRL boolean
  lexical value and gets rejected by the NBB validator.

Cause of the issue:
QWeb templates translate static text nodes by default. The base
module ships a generic `msgid "false" -> msgstr "onwaar"` translation,
used elsewhere in the UI, which silently hijacks the literal
"false"/"true" and unit tokens ("iso4217:EUR", "pure") in the XBRL
data templates whenever the file is generated in Dutch.

Solution:
Add `t-translation="off"` on the `<met:bln1>` boolean facts and the
`<measure>` unit tokens in the 5 remaining XBRL templates,
so these fixed-vocabulary XBRL values are never subject to translation

opw-6395785

### Issue before this commit:
When a company generates an EC Sales List for a foreign country (e.g., a Luxembourgish company running a Belgian report), the exported XML and PDF files incorrectly display the company's primary domestic VAT number instead of the foreign VAT number defined in the fiscal position in the tag DeclarantReference.

### Steps to reproduce the issue:
1. Download Accounting and l10n_lu
2. Switch to LU company
3. Go to Fiscal Positions in settings and create the Belgian position (insert country as Belgium and Foreign Tax ID as BE0477472701)
4. A pop up will appear saying: Click  to create the taxes for this country. so click there to create the taxes
5. Go to Invoices and create a new invoice and be sure that:
	1. be sure the customer has a VAT number in their profile
	2. in tab Other Info the Fiscal Position is set to Belgium
	3. the tax applied is 0% EU S (BE)
	4. date of invoice is in June
6. Open the tax return in 1 July
7. Open EC Sales List June 2026 (BE) and mark as reviewed all the lines
8. Click on Validate
9. Open the XML and PDF file created and see that the tag DeclarantReference is wrong because it reports the data of LU company instead of BE company

### Cause of the issue:
The `export_to_xml_sales_report` method relied on legacy code (company.partner_id.vat) to fetch the VAT number. It failed to use the centralized `get_vat_for_export(options)` method, thereby completely bypassing the foreign VAT logic correctly implemented in other tax reports.

### Reason to introduce the fix:
To ensure tax compliance by appling the correct VAT number from the foreign fiscal position.

opw-6170447

Steps to reproduce
---
1. Enable Packages and turn on "Move Entire Packages" on the delivery operation type.
2. Create a storable product P and add 2 units in different package in stock: 1 in PACK001, 1 in PACK002 
3. In the Barcode app > Operations > Delivery > New
4. Scan a first package PACK001, then a second different package PACK002
5. Scan the first package PACK001 again.

Issue
---
Re-scanning an already scanned package is meant to be rejected with a "This package is already scanned." warning, but the rejection stops working as soon as a second package is present in the transfer, so the package content gets added a second time and, once validated, the source quant goes negative (the package ends up holding a negative and a positive quant of the same product).

Commit 23613c63947 added a canPackSomeLines flag that is set to true for every package line that is not the scanned one, so any other package in the transfer makes the alreadyDonePackId && !canPackSomeLines guard false and silently skips the warning. The scanned package already exposes whether it had something left to pack through scannedPackages, so gating the warning on that flag instead keeps the check working regardless of how many other packages are in the transfer.

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/3cc1a162e61662814b0e52c0c720831952d208a8/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_picking_model.js#L1976-L2006

opw-6279105

## Issue
When creating a Contract Template for a Swiss company, the template does not match the version shown in the Employee's view. Also, some fields are not correctly applied when loading a contract template on an employee (e.g. `hourly_wage`, `wage`, ...).

## Steps to reproduce
1. Install *Switzerland - Swissdec Certified ELM 5.0 - Payroll* (`l10n_ch_hr_payroll`)
2. (Create and) Use a Swiss company
3. In Employees > Configuration > Contract Templates, create a Contract Template
    - Wage Type: Hourly Wage
    - Hourly Wage: Any value > 0
    - **(Notice how the aforementionned fields are missing from the template)**
4. In Employees > Employees, create an Employee
5. On the new employee's view, on the Payroll tab, click "Load Template"
and load the template created in step 3
6. **The data from the template is not applied to the employee's contract**

## Cause
The fields loaded from a contract template are listed in the `whitelist` variable of the `hr.version.wizard`:

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5c3deb11627f4d6762c4994207bd582afb96f064/addons/hr/wizard/hr_contract_template_wizard.py#L15-L30

Multiple fields were missing from the whitelist (e.g. `hourly_wage`, `l10n_ch_has_{hourly|monthly|lesson}`, ...). These fields would not be loaded from the template when applying a template on an employee.

**This commit replicates the employee's version view on the contract template and adds the related fields to the whitelist for them to be correctly applied when loading a contract template.**

opw-5966664
opw-6128467

**Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:**

When adding a custom field (e.g., via Studio) to the Documents list view, clicking the cell directly does not trigger inline edit mode. The user has to first click a standard editable field (like "Owner") to put the row into edit mode before they can modify the custom field.

This occurs because we use a hardcoded whitelist (`editableColumns`) of standard fields allowed to trigger edit mode. Custom fields (`x_`) are missing from this static list.

This commit resolves the issue by dynamically injecting visible, non-readonly custom fields into the `editableColumns` whitelist. This allows user-created fields to be edited inline as expected.

**Steps to reproduce:**

- Documents > Studio > List view > Add any field that accepts user input (e.g. Text/char) > save/exit
- In the same Documents list view > select a row > click the cell belonging to the newly created field > observe that the row does not enter edit mode
- In the same Documents list view > select a row > click a standard editable cell, then click the cell belonging to our newly created field > observe that this then allows us to edit our field


**Current behavior before PR:**

- Custom fields do not trigger inline edit mode

**Desired behavior after PR is merged:**

- Custom fields trigger inline edit mode

opw-6378102