This commit adds 4 attachments to the Latvian tax report
and an XML export for the tax report (including the attachments).

The attachments are the following
- PVN 1-I: domestic purchase / import
- PVN 1-II: EU purchase
- PVN 1-III: domestic sales / export
- PVN 2: EU sale

The attachments give more details for the tax report.
The lines of the attachments are "transactions"
A "transaction" is identified by the move and the transaction type or document type.
The transaction type is given via a tax tag (see community PR).
- PVN 1-I: transaction type, move
  - Small transactions (< 150€) are aggregated separately under transaction types 'V' or 'T'
    independently of the move
  - 'V': All small transactions of a partner in case the total of all their small transactions reaches 150€
    - There is max 1 line per partner
  - 'T': All small transactions that are not grouped under some 'V' line
    - There is max 1 line like this; it has no partner information
- PVN 1-II: transaction type, move
  - Small transactions (< 150€) are aggregated separately under transaction types 'V' or 'T'
    (like PVN 1-I)
- PVN 1-III: document type, move and line in the main tax report
  - All transactions with (document) type 'X' are aggregated on a single line
  - Small transactions (< 150€) are aggregated separately under document types 'V' or 'T'
    (like PVN 1-I)
  - The line in the main tax report is ignored for 'X' and small transactions
- PVN 2: transaction type, move
  - No aggregation is performed here

Only account move lines that are tagged with a transaction type (1-I, 1-II, 2)
or a relevant tag for the main report (1-III) are shown in the reports.

The tags `Rep` and `C (car)` only take 40% and 50% respectively of the
base amounts. The tax amount is assumed to be split correctly.

task-4251184

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#84135

**Steps to reproduce:**
* Install the **l10n_pe_edi** module.
* Change the company currency to **USD**.
* Configure **Peruvian detraction** settings:
  * Set a **withholding percentage** on a product.
  * Set a **withholding code** on the same product.
* Create a customer invoice in **USD**.
* Set the **Operation Type** to **[1001] Operation Subject to Detraction**.
* Add the configured product to the invoice.
* Confirm the invoice, **send it to SUNAT** by *process now**, and generate the ZIP which has XML.

**Observed behavior:**
* The generated XML contains: `<cbc:Amount currencyID="PEN">116.82</cbc:Amount>` The `currencyID` is `PEN` but the amount is the raw USD value instead of being converted to PEN using the exchange rate.
* The PDF report also shows the withholding amount with the wrong currency symbol.

**Cause:**
* `_l10n_pe_edi_get_spot()` computed `spot['amount']` as `amount_total_signed * percent`, where `amount_total_signed` is stored in the **company currency**. When the company currency is PEN this works correctly, but when it is changed to USD the value is in USD while the XML node hardcodes `currencyID="PEN"`.
* `spot['currency']` was also set to `company_id.currency_id`, so the PDF rendered the amount with the wrong currency symbol.
* In `_add_invoice_payment_terms_nodes`, `spot_amount` was selected via `spot['amount'] if invoice.currency_id == invoice.company_id.currency_id` which relied on company currency being PEN as a proxy for the invoice being in PEN, breaking when company currency is USD.

**Fix:**
* In `_l10n_pe_edi_get_spot()`, compute `spot['amount']` by explicitly converting `amount_total` from the invoice currency to PEN using `currency_id._convert(..., env.ref('base.PEN'), ...)`, ensuring the detraction amount is always in PEN regardless of the company currency.
* Set `spot['currency']` to `env.ref('base.PEN')` so the PDF report always displays the withholding amount with the correct PEN symbol.
* In `_add_invoice_payment_terms_nodes`, always use `spot['spot_amount']` (invoice currency amount) for the `FormaPago`/`Cuota` arithmetic, since `spot['amount']` is now exclusively the PEN amount for the detraction XML node.

opw-6327571

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#125063
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123782

**Problem:**
When a template is restricted to a department, appraisals for employees of that department do not use it — a generic (global) template is used instead.

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Create an appraisal template and restrict it to a department.
2. Make sure at least one global (no department) template also exists.
3. Open a new appraisal and select an employee of that department.
4. Observe the appraisal template stays on the global one.

**Current behavior:**
The global template that was auto-selected before an employee was chosen is kept, ignoring the department-restricted template.

**Expected behavior:**
The template restricted to the employee's department is selected.

**Cause of the issue:**
On a new appraisal the template is computed before an employee (and therefore a department) is set, so a global template is pre-selected. When the employee is then chosen, `_compute_appraisal_template` reruns but the `appraisal.appraisal_template_id or ...` clause short-circuits on the already set global template and never falls through to the department's template.

**Fix:**
Evaluating the department's template before the existing value ensures a department-restricted template takes precedence over a template that was only auto-selected as a default. The existing value is still preserved when the department has no template of its own, so deliberate choices are untouched.

opw-6293936

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#121377

***Issue:***
Since https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/8baaad621a1555680cd77ab514f626137b5b584d the div holding the selection box and the Actions menu carries t-key="targetRecords.length" in the documents list and kanban views, so every change of the selection count destroys and recreates everything inside it. Ticking a document checkbox updates both the selection and the focused record, and with these two updates the recreation goes wrong: the new ActionMenus component ends up destroyed while its button is still in the page. The dropdown click listeners are removed with the component, so clicking Actions does nothing until the selection changes again.

That t-key was added because the selection box shows a stale count after a file upload. The real problem is that SelectionBox caches this.root once in setup. The upload flow reloads the model, which replaces the root record list, and the box keeps counting the selection of the old one.

***Fix:***
Remove the t-key from documents_list_controller.xml and documents_kanban_controller.xml and make DocumentsSelectionBox read the current props.root instead of the value cached by the parent setup. The count follows the new record list after an upload without remounting anything, and the Actions menu is not recreated so its dropdown keeps working. The upload scenario stays covered by the existing multi_view.test.js test, a new test checks that the Actions menu opens with two selected documents.

***Steps to reproduce:***
1. Open the Documents app
2. Switch to the list view
3. Tick the checkboxes of two documents
4. Click the Actions button next to the "2 selected" box

=> the Actions dropdown does not open

Ticket [link](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project.task/6365618)

opw-6365618

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124238
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123575

# How to reproduce
- Have a lot of reusable & locationless packages (e.g. > 10 000)
- Go to any transfer via the barcode application

# The issue
There is a very long loading time, even in local testing. The client of the tickets experiences loadings up to 120 seconds with 50k packages

# Cause
When opening a transfer, we load barcode data by doing an API call to `_get_stock_barcode_data` : https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/fe058ef501767b7ed9758fc9264f664b32c6bae8/stock_barcode/models/stock_picking.py#L85

During this we preload a lot of records, notably packages : https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/fe058ef501767b7ed9758fc9264f664b32c6bae8/stock_barcode/models/stock_picking.py#L128

The issue is that in the fields we read for the packages, two of them (`location_dest_id` & `contained_quant_ids`) have a `_read_group` in their compute (or in the compute of one of the fields they depend on) :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/625e6bcbd66c45ea2f699df14e2ea12e2e28a893/addons/stock/models/stock_package.py#L65 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/625e6bcbd66c45ea2f699df14e2ea12e2e28a893/addons/stock/models/stock_package.py#L146

Fortunately, this does not mean that we make a query for every records. Instead, in Odoo, we fetch records in batch of 1000.

So, for the case of the client, every time he loads the database, the backend does 50 000 / 1000 x 2 = 100 queries, which hinders performance a lot

A [PERF] commit was done to limit the number of packages that are fetched base on a config parameter. The problem is that this parameter does not have a default value, so clients still end up with the problem.

[PERF]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/efe18bc1ea479270e42846986d7ed449b0865617

# Proposed Solution
Add a default value for that config parameter. The exact value is up to discussion

opw-6200730

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124538
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123696

Version - 19.0

Steps to reproduce(runbot):
- Install `l10n_au_hr_payroll`
- Go to Payroll -> Configuration -> Super Accounts
- Create a Super Account by filling all the required fields
- You will encounter the issue
**TraceBack:**
```
('hr.menu_hr_employee_payroll', 485, 'Employees > Employees', 756):
 Traceback (most recent call last):
   File "/tmp/tmpao31_hxw/migrations/base/tests/test_mock_crawl.py", line 346, in crawl_menu
    self.mock_action(action_vals)
   File "/tmp/tmpao31_hxw/migrations/base/tests/test_mock_crawl.py", line 377, in mock_action
    return self.mock_act_window(action)
   File "/tmp/tmpao31_hxw/migrations/base/tests/test_mock_crawl.py", line 537, in mock_act_window
    mock_method(model, view, fields_list, domain, group_by)
   File "/tmp/tmpao31_hxw/migrations/base/tests/test_mock_crawl.py", line 570, in mock_view_form
    [data] = record.read(fields_list)
   File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/odoo/orm/models.py", line 3490, in read
    return self._read_format(fnames=fields, load=load)
   File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/odoo/orm/models.py", line 3747, in _read_format
    vals[name] = convert(record[name], record, use_display_name)
   File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/odoo/orm/models.py", line 6688, in __getitem__
    return self._fields[key].__get__(self)
   File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/odoo/orm/fields.py", line 1744, in __get__
    self.compute_value(recs)
   File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/odoo/orm/fields.py", line 1915, in compute_value
    records._compute_field_value(self)
   File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/addons/mail/models/mail_thread.py", line 484, in _compute_field_value
    return super()._compute_field_value(field)
   File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/odoo/orm/models.py", line 4954, in _compute_field_value
    determine(field.compute, self)
   File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/odoo/orm/fields.py", line 81, in determine
    return needle(*args)
   File "/home/odoo/src/enterprise/19.0/l10n_au_hr_payroll/models/hr_employee.py", line 118, in _compute_proportion_warnings
    proportions[emp.id] * 100,
 KeyError: 4
```
Issue:
During the refactoring from `read_group()` to `_read_group()`, the `proportions` dictionary became keyed by `hr.employee` records instead of employee IDs. While the condition was updated to use `proportions.get(emp)`, the warning message still accessed the dictionary using `proportions[emp.id]`, resulting in a `KeyError`.

Fix:
Use the employee record consistently when accessing the `proportions` dictionary after switching to `_read_group()`.

Task ID - 6390373
Refrence:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/72217/changes#diff-8ae3564d54e47eec919ef273d44f6276d8c6df60e21c5c8c8f7292b1c38cf541R460

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124478

In Multiwebsite settings, when the public user interactions needs email generation (appointment or event flow), the email links are generated with a base url that does not corresponds to the one from which the request started.

Case 1:
- Have website A and website B
- Create an appointment page website A
- Log in via website B
- As public user, make an appointment in Website A
- Check the generated email

Issue: button links in the email will redirect to the wrong website, so users will encounter an issue when managing the appointment. This occurs because when an user log in, the system parameter 'web.base_url' is updated with the current url.
This parameter is then used as fallback when we need to retrieve the base url without an active record

Case 2:
- Have website A and website B
- Create an event and assign it to website B
- As public user, access the event and register to it
- Check the generated email

Issue: button links in the email will redirect to the wrong website, so users will encounter an issue when managing the event.
This occurs because the record `event.registration` has no website_id field and the base url is taken from the company default website (website A)

Backport with improvements of 15bae202d8f1b5bf70bbc63b2d89025e9237e6cf

opw-4146760
opw-4336369

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124714
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#122669

**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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#125017
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123935

Steps to reproduce:
==================
1. Add a Donation snippet on a page
2. Click "Donate Now"
3. Switch the website language on the payment page

=> Configured amounts/descriptions disappear

Cause:
======
The donation snippet posts its configuration (prefilled amounts, display options, descriptions) in the request body. If the user switches the website language on the payment page, it triggers a page reload via a GET request which drops the original form body (this also applies to a simple page refresh). As a result, the kwargs were empty and the page fell back to the default free-amount input, losing the configured options.

Solution:
=========
Implement Post/Redirect/Get: on POST, redirect to /donation/pay with the options in the query string so any later GET (language switch, refresh, iframe src reload) re-renders a fully configured page without losing data.

Alternative Solution:
=====================
We could also store the options in the session, but the current solution is much simpler and avoids session pollution.

opw-6282391

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#271460

### Steps to reproduce

1. Trigger an error whose browser object has no `stack` property (for example, a `DOMException` such as `AbortError`).
2. Let the web error service format its traceback.

### Current behavior

`formatTraceback()` calls `error.stack.split(...)` unconditionally, which raises a second `TypeError` and masks the original error.

### Expected behavior

The original error is formatted and reported even when the browser does not provide a stack trace.

### Fix

Use the existing technical name and message as the traceback when `stack` is absent. A focused regression test covers an `AbortError`-like object without `stack`.

### Tests

- `git diff --check`
- `node --check addons/web/static/src/core/errors/error_utils.js`
- `node --check addons/web/static/tests/core/errors/error_service.test.js`
- `@web/core/errors` HOOT suite: 24 tests, 107 assertions passed.

---

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276864

Fix a series of service fee defects and add the missing coverage.

Discounts:
- stop duplicating the service fee line every time a global discount is (re)applied: reconciliation is keyed on tax_ids alone, so the discount line's computation_key is stripped to keep products and discount in one tax group;
- recompute a post_discount fee after a 100% discount deletes the now-zero discount line (which emits no event, leaving a stale fee) (pos_discount);
- keep a single fee line when a gift card / eWallet program is used (pos_loyalty).

Fixed fee:
- scale a fixed fee exactly with its quantity (5 x $2 = $10.00, not 9.99 from per-unit tax rounding);
- fix the fixed fee being off by one cent on recompute.

Refunds:
- a refund order has no preset of its own, so recomputeServiceFees falls back to the refunded order's preset and mirrors the fee proportionally: a percentage fee is correctly signed from the (negative) refund basket, a fixed fee is scaled by the refunded fraction;
- the fee must not also be refunded as an individual line (which would subtract it twice): it is excluded from auto-selection and a manual click is rejected with a warning.

Restaurant:
- keep the fee pinned to the bottom of the order (the last course) as courses are added.

task-6372687

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Create a Sales Order.
2. Create a 50% down payment invoice.
3. Create a credit note for the down payment invoice.
4. Reset the credit note to Draft and cancel it.
5. Create the final invoice from the Sales Order.

**Issue:**
The final invoice is generated for 100% of the order amount, acting as if the down payment invoice does not exist.

**Expected behavior:**
The final invoice should only include the remaining 50% of the order amount because a valid 50% down payment invoice still exists.

**Why this happens:**
- The `price_unit` on the Sales Order's down payment line is manually updated during `action_post()` based on the sum of posted invoices minus posted credit notes.
- When the credit note is posted, `price_unit` drops to 0. However, when that credit note is subsequently reset to draft and cancelled, it triggers `button_cancel()` which only refreshed the line's display name and failed to recalculate `price_unit`. As a result, `price_unit` remained at 0 even though the credit note was no longer active, causing the final invoice to deduct nothing.

opw-6373578

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277386
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275684

**Steps to reproduce:**

- Create an attribute of type always, 2 values A and B for it
- The two values should have an extra price, like 100 for A and 150 for B
- Create an attribute of type dynamic, 2 values C and D for it
- C should have an extra price of 100 and 150 for D
- Make a product with both of those product, set the price to 100

2 possibilities:

- In the PoS, click the product, on the product popup, the price is 100
- This 100 is the product's price and does not change even if we change the values
- Order that product and buy it with variants A and C
- Click on the product again, the price is 300, which is correct
- When we click on D, the price is reset to 100, but should be 350

**Why the fix:**

When computing the popup's title, we try to get the current product based on the variants choices in the popup. If the product is found, we take that, because it means that it's already in the database.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0d7f5058664b501779b833609468e535b34356bf/addons/point_of_sale/static/src/app/components/popups/product_configurator_popup/product_configurator_popup.js#L260

If we do not find it, we just take the product template, which does not contain the current extra prices, which is why we got a price of 100 in the exemple.

The product is not found because in the case of dynamic variants, the product is only created once it has been ordered at least once. Which means that for this newly created product, it is not yet in the database, so we take the product template instead of the product itself.

We now also add the extra price for a product if it is undefined, meaning it has not been found in the database yet.

We can't directly update the getter for the priceExtra, as it's also used to build the payload. As the rest of the code works fine with dynamic products with extra price the way it is sent now, we only change the title instead of changing the entire logic and computation.

opw-6326125

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#273411

In the bubble layout, the `name="company_address"` div was inside an unconstrained `<td>`, causing percentage-based widths set in `company_details` (e.g. `width: 25%` on a image) to resolve against the full table cell width, resulting in oversized content compared to other layouts.
**Without fix:**

<img width="1127" height="411" alt="withoutfix" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/244c3407-1dbb-4b83-95d9-ebaba2b2b13c" />

For e.g, The folder layout wraps the same block in a `w-50` div, so percentage widths resolve against ~half the page width.

<img width="1111" height="410" alt="folderexp" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/ee72712a-94da-483c-9a8e-cb3a850dac8e" />

Added `w-50 ms-auto` to the `name="company_address"` div in the bubble layout to align its sizing context with the other layouts, ensuring consistent rendering of user-defined styles in `company_details` across both layouts.

**With fix:**

<img width="1119" height="413" alt="wfix" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/6b1caf24-3a8e-450f-865e-cce2b9788fe9" />



Commit which made the bubble layout in table: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/8eb61a245cd3b650e309fdb55d24654c34d785cd

opw-6287230



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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275421
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#270725

_**Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:**_
SaleOrder._onchange_order_line retrieves the linked lines of each order line by calling SaleOrderLine._get_linked_lines(). 
That method filters the whole order_line recordset on every call.
Since the onchange is triggered by any change to order_line, this noticeably slows down every modification of the lines on large orders even when the order contains no combo product at all.

_**Current behavior before PR:**_
For every order line, _onchange_order_line calls line._get_linked_lines(), and each call re-scans the entire order_line recordset with filtered(). The cost therefore grows with the total number of lines (regular lines included), so editing any line on a large order is sluggish.

_**Desired behavior after PR is merged:**_
The {line: linked_lines} mapping is computed in a single pass via the new method SaleOrderLine._get_linked_lines_by_line(), called once per onchange instead of once per line. 
The method _get_linked_lines() is kept as a thin single-record wrapper delegating to the batched method, preserving backward compatibility for external callers. Behavior is unchanged and only the performance is improved: the onchange now scales linearly with the number of order lines.

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277620
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277185

all_sm is referenced by two branches of the outer UNION, so PostgreSQL materializes it (a CTE used more than once is an optimization fence). Every query on report_stock_quantity therefore builds the forecast for all products/warehouses first and filters afterwards, so predicates like product_id can't reach the stock_move scan.

This hurts single-product lookups such as _read_group() in mrp_report_bom_structure._get_stock_availability(), called repeatedly per component while rendering a BoM report: each call does a full stock_move scan plus two sorts that spill to disk.

Marking all_sm NOT MATERIALIZED lets the planner inline it and push the product_id/warehouse_id filter down to an index scan, removing the full scan, the GENERATE_SERIES expansion and the on-disk sorts. warehouse_cte stays materialized (small and cheap).

Query generated from the _read_group:
```SQL
SELECT MIN("report_stock_quantity"."date")
FROM "report_stock_quantity"
WHERE (
        (
            (
                (
                    ("report_stock_quantity"."state" = 'forecast')
                    AND ("report_stock_quantity"."date" >= '2026-07-08')
                )
                AND ("report_stock_quantity"."product_id" = 15743)
            )
            AND ("report_stock_quantity"."product_qty" >= 1.0)
        )
        AND ("report_stock_quantity"."warehouse_id" = 4)
    )
    AND ("report_stock_quantity"."company_id" IN (1))
```

Before:
800 ms by _read_group in _get_stock_availability().
For opening a BoM overview with hundred of components takes 17 sec.

After:
25 ms by _read_group in _get_stock_availability().
Same BoM overview drops to 3 sec to open.

cc @Aurelienvd 



I can send you EXPLAIN ANALYZE, but I prefer to not putting them here to avoid data leakage.

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277235
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275022