Thursday, July 23, 2026
11 changes · saas-19.1
Resolved issues and error corrections
The Vietnam Sales Tax Report now displays VAT base amounts as positive values at the detailed invoice level, matching the totals shown in higher-level report lines. This prevents confusion when reviewing VAT on sales and supports more consistent tax reporting for Vietnamese companies.
Original PR description
## Current behavior: In Vietnam's Sales Tax Report, when unfolding until the minimum layer, the VAT now displays the value in negative ## Expected behavior: The VAT value in the minimum layer should…
## Current behavior: In Vietnam's Sales Tax Report, when unfolding until the minimum layer, the VAT now displays the value in negative ## Expected behavior: The VAT value in the minimum layer should be consistent with the upper layers and kept positive ## Steps to reproduce: - Install l10n_vn (l10n_vn_reports will install as well) - Switch to VN Company - With demo data, go to Invoicing / Reporting / Tax Report - Change Tax Report (VN) to Sales/Purchase Tax Report (VN) - Unfold the lines all the way to the minimum layer: VAT on sales of goods and services 10% -> INV/2026/00003 - Observe that the VAT 10% line is at negative, which is inconsistent with the Total line below ## Cause of the issue: - In Odoo, tax journal items store tax_base_amount with the accounting sign (negative for sales). This is expected behavior - However, Vietnamese VAT listing expects commercial amounts, which means sales bases need to be displayed as positive numbers ## Fix: Normalized tax_base_amount sign in _query_tax_lines function before building the SQL query opw-6344577 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#122785
The Knowledge card on the customer portal now uses the same layout as the other portal cards. This fixes a visual inconsistency where the card appeared slightly wider, improving the page’s overall polish and consistency.
Original PR description
The knowledge portal card was injected directly into "o_portal_docs", causing it to render wider than other cards. This happened because other cards sit inside "o_portal_category" (row g-2 mt-3) divs, while, knowledge was a direct child of o_portal_docs, giving it a different grid context despite both using col-md-6. To fix the issue, we wrapped the portal_docs_entry in an "o_portal_category row g-2 mt-3" div to match the structure of all other portal cards. Steps to reproduce: 1. Go to the website. 2. Click on name drop down menu on the navbar like "Mitchell Admin" 3. Click on "My Accont" from the drop down menu 4. Once the page loads properly, you can see the knowledge card width is a little bit larger than other cards. opw-6251483 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119939
This fixes an issue where resetting certain Uruguayan electronic invoices to draft could fail when triggered remotely. The change ensures the action returns a valid response, preventing interruptions for users working with accounting documents.
Original PR description
Calling the method in RPC causes an error: ``` TypeError: cannot marshal None unless allow_none is enabled ``` Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124740 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124653
### Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses: - Opening Studio on a form containing a `Many2many` field using the `many2many_tags_email` widget crashes with an OWL prop validation error. - **Steps to reproduce:** 1. Open any form view (e.g., Contacts) and enter `Studio`. 2. Create a new `Many2many` custom field on a model such as `res.partner` . 3. Set the field's widget to `many2many_tags_email` and save the customization. 4. Exit Studio and populate the field with one or
Original PR description
### Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses: - Opening Studio on a form containing a `Many2many` field using the `many2many_tags_email` widget crashes with an OWL prop validation error. -…
### Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses: - Opening Studio on a form containing a `Many2many` field using the `many2many_tags_email` widget crashes with an OWL prop validation error. - **Steps to reproduce:** 1. Open any form view (e.g., Contacts) and enter `Studio`. 2. Create a new `Many2many` custom field on a model such as `res.partner` . 3. Set the field's widget to `many2many_tags_email` and save the customization. 4. Exit Studio and populate the field with one or more related records. 5. Open Studio again on the same form view. This results in the following error: ```.js Error: Invalid props for component 'RecipientTag': 'onDelete' is undefined (should be a value) ``` ### Current behavior before PR: - When opening Studio on a form containing a `Many2many` field with the `many2many_tags_email` widget, the field is rendered with `onDelete` set to undefined by `Many2ManyTagsField`. Starting from `saas-19.1`, the `many2many_tags_email` widget uses the new [RecipientTag](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/saas-19.1/addons/mail/static/src/core/web/recipient_tag.js) component, which requires onDelete to be defined. As a result, Owl's prop validation fails when RecipientTag receives `onDelete = undefined`, causing Studio to crash with an Invalid props for component 'RecipientTag' error. ### Desired behavior after PR is merged: - `RecipientTag` should allow `onDelete` to be optional so that it can also be used when the parent field does not provide a delete callback. This prevents the Owl prop validation error when opening Studio, while keeping the existing delete functionality unchanged for editable fields where onDelete is available. opw:6395209 --- I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr
Version: -------- - 19.0+ Steps to reproduce: ------------------- - Install `mrp` module - Go to the setting enable `Lots & Serial Numbers` and `Storage Locations` - Create a storable product tracked by Lots - Configure a Putaway Rule for the product so it is stored in a sub-location - Create a Bill of Materials for the product with at least one component - Create and confirm a Manufacturing Order - Increase the production quantity (e.g. using the "Change Production Quantit
Original PR description
Version: -------- - 19.0+ Steps to reproduce: ------------------- - Install `mrp` module - Go to the setting enable `Lots & Serial Numbers` and `Storage Locations` - Create a storable product tracked…
Version:
--------
- 19.0+
Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
- Install `mrp` module
- Go to the setting enable `Lots & Serial Numbers` and `Storage Locations`
- Create a storable product tracked by Lots
- Configure a Putaway Rule for the product so it is stored in a
sub-location
- Create a Bill of Materials for the product with at least one
component
- Create and confirm a Manufacturing Order
- Increase the production quantity (e.g. using the "Change Production
Quantity" wizard)
- Click **Generate Lot/Serial Number**
- Click **Produce All**
Issue:
------
Completing the Manufacturing Order raises:
Invalid Operation
You need to supply a Lot/Serial Number for product:
- Product
even though a single lot should be sufficient for a lot-tracked
product.
Cause:
------
When the production quantity is increased, `change_prod_qty()` updates
the finished move's demanded quantity and re-reserves it through
`_update_finished_moves()`:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/154b49ec6be6230989ee4eb420e7f83b681ff520/addons/mrp/wizard/change_production_qty.py#L77
which calls `_action_assign()` on the finished move:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/154b49ec6be6230989ee4eb420e7f83b681ff520/addons/mrp/wizard/change_production_qty.py#L49
Since finished moves originate from the production location, they
bypass the normal reservation flow:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/154b49ec6be6230989ee4eb420e7f83b681ff520/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L2070
`_action_assign()` then tries to reuse the move's existing move line,
but the lookup requires `location_dest_id` to still match the move's
generic destination:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/154b49ec6be6230989ee4eb420e7f83b681ff520/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L2092-L2106
That existing line's `location_dest_id` was already redirected to the
putaway sub-location by the previous `_apply_putaway_strategy()` call
(at MO confirmation), so the lookup no longer matches and a second,
distinct move line is created and appended instead of the first one
being reused:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/154b49ec6be6230989ee4eb420e7f83b681ff520/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L2170
Later, clicking **Generate Lot/Serial Number** creates a single lot and
stores it on the production order's `lot_producing_ids`:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/154b49ec6be6230989ee4eb420e7f83b681ff520/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L1602
When **Produce All** is clicked, which trigger `button_mark_done()` it calls
`_post_inventory()`:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/154b49ec6be6230989ee4eb420e7f83b681ff520/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L2227
which assigns that lot to the finished move through `move.lot_ids`:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/154b49ec6be6230989ee4eb420e7f83b681ff520/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L1925
Since `lot_ids` is declared with `inverse='_set_lot_ids'`, this write
triggers that inverse method:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/154b49ec6be6230989ee4eb420e7f83b681ff520/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L192
The current implementation of `_set_lot_ids()` only assigns the lot to
a single available move line, regardless of tracking type:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/154b49ec6be6230989ee4eb420e7f83b681ff520/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L656-L668
Since only one lot is ever generated for a lot-tracked product, only
the first finished move line receives a `lot_id`. The second move line
created after increasing the production quantity is left without one.
When `button_mark_done()` validates the finished move lines, it
detects that one of them still has no lot assigned and raises the
"Invalid Operation" error, even though a single lot is valid for the
entire production of a lot-tracked product.
Fix:
----
`action_generate_serial` produces a single lot for the whole production.
In `_post_inventory()`, right after the generated lot is set on
the finished move, propagate it to any remaining lot-less move lines
of a **lot**-tracked finished move.
---
opw-6366060
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275000# Step to reproduce - Install eCommerce - Activate dev mode with tests assets (important!) - Go to the website & add a Countdow in the footer - Add a new product from the website system tray - Put any name & Save - Go into Edit mode - In the Style tab, (un)toggle "Tax Indication" (may need to do it multiple times) > Note that the issue is quite inconsistent to reproduce # Issue A traceback is shown # Cause The only thing I'm sure of is that the error is caused by this code : htt
Original PR description
# Step to reproduce - Install eCommerce - Activate dev mode with tests assets (important!) - Go to the website & add a Countdow in the footer - Add a new product from the website system tray - Put…
# Step to reproduce - Install eCommerce - Activate dev mode with tests assets (important!) - Go to the website & add a Countdow in the footer - Add a new product from the website system tray - Put any name & Save - Go into Edit mode - In the Style tab, (un)toggle "Tax Indication" (may need to do it multiple times) > Note that the issue is quite inconsistent to reproduce # Issue A traceback is shown # Cause The only thing I'm sure of is that the error is caused by this code : https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/8759429547e42e9f63b15a7c80475be46ef437e2/addons/website/static/tests/tour_utils/lifecycle_dep_interaction.js#L18-L20 And that it is linked to `browser.localStorage`. I suspect it is due to some weird localStorage and WysiwygAdapter interaction : https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/d6a08b67a948f569a1ca893b6337ce50b4ef9f07/addons/website/static/tests/tours/widget_lifecycle.js#L53-L60 But I can't be sure because debugging tools do not seem to be working. See the inverstigation comment in the associated PR for more information. # Proposed Solution Since this code is only used for this test : https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/96a0a9a0332ae460973b6f01b461a0f7e3e2f7fa/addons/website/static/tests/tours/interaction_lifecycle.js#L14-L15 And the test directly parses from the `window.localStorage` : https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/96a0a9a0332ae460973b6f01b461a0f7e3e2f7fa/addons/website/static/tests/tours/interaction_lifecycle.js#L50 We can use `window.localStorage` instead of `browser.localStorage` as it fixes the issue opw-6246850 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#272736
## Problem When generating accrual entries for multiple sale orders, the stock variation lines would all show the same order name, even if the line belonged to a different sale order. This is caused by the `order` variable being reused from a previous loop. ## Solution We will pull the order name directly from the order line in the current iteration. ## Steps to reproduce (Runbot v19) 1. Create a product with AVCO perpetual valuation 2. Make sure all accounts are configured properly (I
Original PR description
## Problem When generating accrual entries for multiple sale orders, the stock variation lines would all show the same order name, even if the line belonged to a different sale order. This is caused…
## Problem When generating accrual entries for multiple sale orders, the stock variation lines would all show the same order name, even if the line belonged to a different sale order. This is caused by the `order` variable being reused from a previous loop. ## Solution We will pull the order name directly from the order line in the current iteration. ## Steps to reproduce (Runbot v19) 1. Create a product with AVCO perpetual valuation 2. Make sure all accounts are configured properly (Income, Expense, Stock, and stock variation accounts) 3. Add units to the stock (it can be with an adjustment, as long as the product has a cost already set) 4. Create 2 separate sales orders for this product 5. Deliver both of the sales orders, do not invoice them 6. Now go to the Accounting App Review>Invoices to be issued 7. Select the 2 invoices that were created. The Revenue accrual lines are correct, with each SO being referenced, but on the Stock variation lines, only the last SO selected will appear. opw-6361032 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277058
Calling the method in RPC causes an error: ``` TypeError: cannot marshal None unless allow_none is enabled ``` 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#277047 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276541
Original PR description
Calling the method in RPC causes an error: ``` TypeError: cannot marshal None unless allow_none is enabled ``` 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#277047 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276541
Problem: Changing the text alignment of a table header in Studio reports has no effect. Cause: When the alignment is already defined by a CSS class using `!important` (for example, `text-center`), the inline style applied from the toolbar is ignored. Solution: Backport commit 373be20905bcb11f8323a986053e3dc7996ce567. Steps to reproduce: - Open the invoice report. - Change the alignment of a table header. - Observe that the new alignment is not applied. opw-6389158 --- I con
Original PR description
Problem: Changing the text alignment of a table header in Studio reports has no effect. Cause: When the alignment is already defined by a CSS class using `!important` (for example, `text-center`), the inline style applied from the toolbar is ignored. Solution: Backport commit 373be20905bcb11f8323a986053e3dc7996ce567. Steps to reproduce: - Open the invoice report. - Change the alignment of a table header. - Observe that the new alignment is not applied. opw-6389158 --- I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276470
Note: In odoo all date/datetime fields are stored and computed by default as UTC Before this commit, dates were called using local timezone getters. This caused the time returned from web to be shifted by the timezone as the dates returned would be treated as UTC. After this commit, dates are now called using UTC timzone getters. Now all web times are retrived as UTC and in sync with the rest of the odoo fields and computations. task-6271421 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276683 Forward-Po
Original PR description
Note: In odoo all date/datetime fields are stored and computed by default as UTC Before this commit, dates were called using local timezone getters. This caused the time returned from web to be shifted by the timezone as the dates returned would be treated as UTC. After this commit, dates are now called using UTC timzone getters. Now all web times are retrived as UTC and in sync with the rest of the odoo fields and computations. task-6271421 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276683 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265250
Before this fix, if a custom group was added in an Odoo PIVOT in a spreadsheet, without sorting, the custom group name was added to the RPC kwards.order, causing a server error. After this fix, the custom group name is removed from the RPC kwards.order. Task: 6401442 --- I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277478
Original PR description
Before this fix, if a custom group was added in an Odoo PIVOT in a spreadsheet, without sorting, the custom group name was added to the RPC kwards.order, causing a server error. After this fix, the custom group name is removed from the RPC kwards.order. Task: 6401442 --- I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277478