### 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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124698

## 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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#110683

`pos_amount_unsettled` is a stored computed field defined as the invoice's residual minus the settle lines belonging to sessions that are not yet closed. Its compute method filters the lines on `order_id.session_id.state`, but that state is not in the compute dependencies.

When closing a session holding a settle order, `_validate_session()` first reconciles the settle payment with the invoice (which lowers `amount_residual_signed` and flags the field for recomputation) and only then writes `state = 'closed'` on the session. If the pending recomputation is executed in that window (any flush of `account.move` does it: recomputing the field for any other flagged record drags the whole queue along), the settle line is deducted from the already reconciled residual, i.e. counted twice, and the field is stored as `residual - settled` instead of `residual`. Since the session state is not a dependency, writing `state = 'closed'` does not flag the field again and the wrong value is never corrected.

The partner's `invoices_amount_due` then goes negative, which hides the "Settle invoices" option in the POS partner list and inflates the "Settle due amount" proposal
(`remainingDue = total_due - pos_orders_amount_due - invoices_amount_due`): a customer owing e.g. 500 is proposed, and charged, 700.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Post a customer invoice of 1000.
2. In the POS, select the customer > Settle invoices, pick the invoice, set the amount to 700 and pay in cash.
3. Close the session. The issue only occurs when the pending recomputation runs during the closing, which depends on the other operations performed by it (not deterministic in real usage; the regression test forces it with a flush after the reconciliation).
4. The invoice's "Amount To Pay In POS" shows -400 instead of 300 and the POS proposes to settle 700 instead of 300.

Add the session state to the compute dependencies so that the field is recomputed once the session is closed, yielding the correct amount regardless of any intermediate recomputation.

opw-6375095

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123783

Currently when a user with a product manager rights that is not admin tries to look up the product with barcode information is not auto filled.

## Steps to replicate:
- Install stock with demo data
- Barcode Database > Setup barcode lookup credentials
- Users > Marc Demo > Give Marc Demo > Master Data > Products > Create
- Login as `Marc Demo`
- Products > Barcode: `850049670180` > Click anywhere else

## Observed Behaviour:
Information on the product template is not autofilled, as it would be when using a System Admin user(Mitchell Admin).

## Root cause:
This issue occurs because barcode lookup is gated behind a check for System Admin rights. Although users in the Product Manager group have permission to create products, they do not satisfy this condition, so the barcode lookup never executes at [1].
[1]-
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/c66995fda83e19b28a38312af8efdc1601881cf0/product_barcodelookup/models/product_template.py#L17-L22 
## Why this is an issue:
The original restriction (task [2] and commit [3]) was intended to limit barcode lookup to users who can create products, preventing unnecessary API calls. This was a valid assumption in 17.3-18.0, where creating products in POS required System Admin rights but now after commit [4] this is no longer the case.

In v18, task [5] introduced the Product Manager group, making product creation independent of System Admin rights or module rights. Later, v18.3 exposed these Master Data access rights to non-debug users through commit [6].

As a result, there are users who are legitimately responsible for product creation and maintenance (regardless of POS usage) they can no longer use barcode lookup unless they are also granted full System Admin privileges, which provides broader access than required.

## Solution:
Remove the group-based permission check so that access is determined solely by product edit permissions. This ensures that only users with the ability to modify products can use the API call, preserving the original security intent.
As a result, users no longer need unnecessary administrative privileges toperform barcode lookups.

[2]:
https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project/49/tasks/3911024 
[3]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/444df3e48cb8d479d3b5d4a03a4bfefa48650910 
[4]:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/821bbc4504fd80a508e2412c7490ee60dd03f7b8 
[5]:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/d4886faf12ccaf63d5e899c20df2543d1ce046ab 
[6]:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/e74eaf628498155243db73ea229eaf5e74c24f2a

opw-6290999

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#121915

When importing an EnvioDTE XML containing several DTEs (journal upload or incoming DTE mail server), one vendor bill is created per DTE, but the first bill receives the invoice lines and references of ALL the DTEs in the file, causing the total amount mismatch.

Cause: `_split_xml_into_new_attachments()` creates new attachments for the documents beyond the first one but leaves the original `file_data['xml_tree']` untouched; the decoder must scope itself to the first document (as l10n_it_edi and l10n_es_edi_facturae do), which `_l10n_cl_import_dte()` never did.

e.g. l10n_es_edi_facturae:633:

```python
# Only decode the first invoice of the Factura-e file.
tree = tree.xpath('//Invoice')[0]
```

Fix: scope the tree to the first DTE node before filling the bill. Kept behind a `len > 1` guard so files with a bare <DTE> root (matched by `xpath('//ns0:DTE')` but not by `findall('.//ns0:DTE')`) keep working.

Introduced in: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/75327.

opw-6378954

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124691

Currently, an error occurs when a user removes the payslip dates.

**Steps to reproduce:**

 - Install the `l10n_mx_hr_payroll_account_edi` module with demo data.
 - Switch to `ZAPATERIA URTADO ÑERI` company
 - Go to `Payslips`, create a payslip.
 - Set an `employee`, and remove either the `start date` or the `end date` from Period..

`TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for +: 'bool' and 'relativedelta'`

After the [recent commit] adding a warning about the employee exceeding the salary limit, when the 
user removes the dates from the payslip, the compute method attempts to compute the warning 
from [1], and when it adds relativedelta to date_from, which is False, it raises the error [2].

This commit ensures that the payslip dates are checked first before adding relativedelta to the date 
and performing the comparison.

[recent commit]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/6abfa47dafe439f9328d606ef6ac5126ec6eb1f6

[1]- https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/53a7fd4d53ffd510ad42632c69ce9d3a22c59e70/hr_payroll/models/hr_payslip.py#L1446

[2]- https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/53a7fd4d53ffd510ad42632c69ce9d3a22c59e70/l10n_mx_hr_payroll_account_edi/models/hr_payslip.py#L272-L276

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#122643

When a knowledge article linked to an Annual report is moved to the trash and
the ``Base: Auto-vacuum internal data`` cron runs, a traceback will generate.

Steps to reproduce the error:
- Install ``accountant_knowledge`` module
- Go to Accounting > Review > Annual Report > Create a new annual report
- Go to Knowledge > Open the knowledge article linked to the annual report > Send to Trash
- Run the ``Base: Auto-vacuum internal data`` cron

Traceback:
```py
ForeignKeyViolation: update or delete on table "knowledge_article" violates foreign key constraint 
"audit_report_knowledge_article_id_fkey" on table "audit_report" DETAIL:  Key (id)=(67) is still referenced from table "audit_report".
```

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/04cce2e400ce2e412f28aa1849078a7c40ff0e2c/knowledge/models/knowledge_article.py#L1069-L1070
The garbage collector deletes trashed knowledge articles that match its domain.
Since this domain also includes articles linked to Annual Reports,
the cron attempts to delete records that are still referenced by annual report,
resulting in a foreign key violation error.

Solution:
Ensure linked audit reports are also deleted during knowledge article garbage collection.

sentry-7488793071

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#121189

Steps to reproduce:
===================
1. Create a subscription product, allow one-time sale, sale price 5
2. Add a recurring price 10/month
3. On the pricelist, add an advanced rule: -10% for the monthly plan
4. Open the shop page and look at the product tile

Cause:
=======
On the /shop page, the subscription price displayed on a product tile is computed by `_get_sales_prices`. The cart has no plan selected yet at that point, so `request.cart.plan_id.id` is empty and was passed as `plan_id` to `_compute_price`.

In `product.pricelist.item._compute_base_price`, the recurring base price is only looked up when a `plan_id` is given: if rule_base == 'list_price' and product.recurring_invoice and plan_id: ... # find the recurring rule -> base = recurring price

With `plan_id` empty, that branch is skipped and the percentage rule falls back on the product's one-time `list_price` instead of the recurring price.

Example: one-time price 5, recurring price 10/month, pricelist rule -10% on the monthly plan.
=> Tile showed 4.5/month (5 * 0.9) instead of 9/month (10 * 0.9).

Solution:
=========
The chosen pricing already targets a plan, so pass `pricing.plan_id.id` to `_compute_price`, matching what the product page does in `_get_additionnal_combination_info`.

opw-6307398

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120872

**Problem:**
On a website with rental planning enabled, a customer can book a planning-backed rental product through eCommerce even when no planning resource is free for the requested window. The cart lets them increase the quantity past the available capacity and proceed all the way through checkout without any availability gate.

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Install `website_sale_renting_planning`.
2. Create a planning role with `sync_shift_rental` and one resource.
3. Create a service product with `rent_ok=True`, `planning_enabled=True` and the role above.
4. Pre-book the resource for some window via a `planning.slot`.
5. From eCommerce, add the product to the cart for the same window.
6. Proceed to checkout/payment.

**Current behavior:**
The cart is considered ready, no warning is shown, and payment can proceed even though no planning resource is free for the chosen period.

**Expected behavior:**
The cart should be flagged as not ready and pre-payment validation should refuse to confirm until the customer picks a different date or quantity.

**Cause of the issue:**
`sale.order._available_dates_for_renting` in `website_sale_renting` is the documented hook for "stock availability" gating of the cart and pre-payment flow (called from `_is_cart_ready` and from `_check_cart_is_ready_to_be_paid`). `website_sale_stock_renting` overrides it to apply a per-line stock check, but
`website_sale_renting_planning` has no such override, so planning-backed rental services reach payment with no availability gate at all.

**Fix:**
Apply the same gating pattern that `website_sale_stock_renting` already uses: override `_available_dates_for_renting` in `website_sale_renting_planning` so that, for each rental line whose product is a planning-synced rentable service, the cart is only considered valid when at least the requested quantity of planning resources is free during the rental window (mirroring the resource and leave filtering already done by `_planning_slot_vals_list_per_sol` at SO confirmation time). This puts the gate at the same point the stock-renting flow enforces it, keeping the public cart/checkout flow consistent across rentable product types.

opw-6247034

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118943

### 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] 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 I nvalid 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

[RecipientTag]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/saas-19.1/addons/mail/static/src/core/web/recipient_tag.js

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

### Contains the following commits:

https://github.com/odoo/o-spreadsheet/commit/c88086079f [REL] 19.1.29 [Task: 0](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/2328/tasks/0)
https://github.com/odoo/o-spreadsheet/commit/e8dafa04d1 [FIX] autofill: hide autofill handler when selection is hidden [Task: 6317808](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/2328/tasks/6317808)
https://github.com/odoo/o-spreadsheet/commit/33ef954e9f [FIX] HeaderVisibility: fix `getNextVisibleCellPosition` getter [Task: 6340589](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/2328/tasks/6340589)
https://github.com/odoo/o-spreadsheet/commit/d262fe5e19 [FIX] edition: do not change edition if not editing [Task: 6340589](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/2328/tasks/6340589)

Co-authored-by: Florian Damhaut (flda) <flda@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Anthony Hendrickx (anhe) <anhe@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Alexis Lacroix (laa) <laa@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Lucas Lefèvre (lul) <lul@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Adrien Minne (adrm) <adrm@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Ronak Mukeshbhai Bharadiya (rmbh) <rmbh@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Dhrutik Patel (dhrp) <dhrp@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Rémi Rahir (rar) <rar@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Pierre Rousseau (pro) <pro@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Vincent Schippefilt (vsc) <vsc@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Marceline Thomas (matho) <matho@odoo.com>

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

[FIX] account: prevent access error for branch users

When a user restricted to a branch company opens the accounting dashboard,
they may encounter an AccessError preventing the app from loading.

This occurs because the dashboard logic attempts to read the 
`fiscalyear_lock_date` from the journal's company. In a branch setup, 
this configuration often belongs to the parent company, which the user
typically does not have read access to. The system then blocks the action
and gives an AccessError.

This commit resolves the issue by adding `.sudo()` when reading the 
`fiscalyear_lock_date`. This safely bypasses the record rule restriction, 
allowing the dashboard to fetch the necessary accounting configuration 
without requiring the user to have broad access to the parent company.

**Steps to reproduce:**

- As Mitchell Admin:
  - Settings > Users & Companies > Companies > My Company (San Francisco) > Branches > create a branch
  - Settings > Users & Companies > Users > Marc Demo > Access Rights > change “Companies” and “Default Company” to only the newly created branch
- As Marc Demo:
  - Attempt to access Accounting app > observe Access Error


**Current behavior before PR:**

- Users belonging to only a branch company are unable to access the Accounting dashboard

**Desired behavior after PR is merged:**

- Users belonging to only a branch company are able to access the Accounting dashboard

opw-6369616

Before this commit, the journal and the memo of a payment linked to a company-paid expense report could be modified although such payments must be kept consistent with their expense report: a missing comma in the set of protected fields merged 'journal_id' and 'ref' into a single meaningless entry. The memo was also left editable because the set still referred to 'ref', which was renamed to 'memo'.

Steps to reproduce:
- submit, approve and post an expense paid by company
- open the payment created for the expense report
- edit the memo or the journal and save, then try to edit the date

Editing the date is refused with "You cannot do this modification since the payment is linked to an expense report", while the memo and journal changes are silently accepted.

Solution:
Restore the missing comma and protect the renamed memo field.

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277737
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277423

# How to reproduce
- Enable Cloudflare Turnstile in Settings > Integrations
- Add a CF Site Key & a CF Secret Key. e.g. :
	- `1x00000000000000000000AA`
	- `1x0000000000000000000000000000000AA` 
(See : https://developers.cloudflare.com/turnstile/troubleshooting/testing/)
- Go to a Website page with a form
- Add `?cf=show` to the URL
- Open the browser console
- Search the dom for an element with s_turnstile_container
- Look for the `data-appearance` attribute

# The issue
`data-appearance` is set to `interaction-only` but should be `always` according to :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/1e73172b51cd673c3414187af4f98304921ed7b3/addons/website_cf_turnstile/static/src/interactions/turnstile.js#L8-L12

# Cause
`appearance` is misspelled in the template :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/1e73172b51cd673c3414187af4f98304921ed7b3/addons/website_cf_turnstile/static/src/interactions/turnstile.xml#L7

Documentation on the Appearance modes for Turnstile : https://developers.cloudflare.com/turnstile/get-started/client-side-rendering/widget-configurations/#appearance-modes

opw-6359977

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275077

Steps to produce: 

1) Install Manufacturing & enable "Work Order Dependencies" in the settings
2) Make a new BOM with 2 operations
3) Check "Operation Dependencies" in the miscellaneous tab on the BOM's form view.
4) Configure the first sequential operation to be blocked by the second
5) Make and confirm an MO using this BOM
6) Uncheck "Operation Dependencies" on the BOM
7) Press "Plan" on the MO, a validation error is thrown stating "You cannot create cyclic dependency."

Issue occurs because after the MO is confirmed the blocked_by_workorder_ids field for mrp.workorder records is set based on the order manually configured on the BOM (operation 1 is blocked by operation 2). After the BOM is edited to have allow_operation_dependencies = false, then Odoo uses the default sequential ordering when planning the operations (operation 2 is blocked by operation 1). Since the old ordering is never cleared, a cycle is created unintentionally. 

This PR resolves this issue by clearing the blocked_by_workorder_ids field on mrp.workorder records. 

opw-6334271

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275154

## Current behavior:
Clicking on the Late activity for Lot/Serial in the notification systray doesn't apply the Late activities filter.

## Expected behavior:
Clicking on the Late activity for Lot/Serial in the notification systray should apply the Late activities filter.

## Steps to reproduce:
1. Install Inventory (stock) module, make sure to enable Lots & Serial Numbers in Inventory > Traceability
2. Create some new Lots / Serial numbers
3. Add some Activities with Due Date before today
4. Observe that the Clock icon on systray will count up, showing the number of activities that are late, for today and for future
5. Click on the Late activities (e.g. 2 Late) should only show the 2 late activities. Instead, no filter is applied, thus showing all the Lots / Serial numbers in the inventory

## Cause of the issue:
Missing filters for Late, Today and Future activities in the stock_lot_views.xml

## Fix:
Added 3 filters for Late, Today and Future activities

opw-6332560

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#272735

**Step to Reproduce:**

1. Create a database in 18.0 with `l10n_mt` installed.
2. Select the Malta chart template (COA).
3. Upgrade the database to 19.0.
4. Verify the tax grids.

**Issue:**

Tax grids remain unchanged after the upgrade and do not reflect the modifications introduced in [1].

The tax definitions are loaded from CSV data and don't happen during upgrade or module update it did through try_loading". Since the account tags already exist in upgraded databases, the changes are not applied during module loading and the updated grid assignments are not assigned to taxes.

**Fix:**
Apply the grid update directly through SQL during the upgrade or module update. The change is limited to tax grid assignments and does not require a full tax reload using ``try_loading`` or ``load_data``.

**Before fix:**
<img width="1458" height="724" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/eaac5e3f-d551-4ec0-b282-bb39a50438f9" />

**After fix:**
<img width="1240" height="583" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/74409c53-dce0-45b2-a6b5-e60f5c2d826d" />



Note: why this fix is needed because existing upgrade script do update move line grid but still tax have the old grid which is weird and will cause issue when journal entry will create. 

[1]:  https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/254894/changes/8921186850e31c53072d49a5dc760192f3edb902

opw-6325845
upg-4391393

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#272038

On a Purchase Order, if you duplicate the delivery, change its Operation Type and validate it, it will still count towards the received quantity on the po.

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
* Create a PO and confirm it
* Open the receipt, validate and duplicate it
* Go on the duplicated receipt and change its Operation Type
* Confirm the duplicated receipt. 
-> the Received Qty on the Po counted the duplicated and modified transfer.

Observation:
-------------
When we duplicate a stock.picking, we will call ```copy``` and copy all its ```move_ids``` (stock.move), and in stock.move we will copy the ```purchase_line_id``` : https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/754898c58fded0e3c3c30702f15258f1dadcfa6c/odoo/models.py#L5868 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/754898c58fded0e3c3c30702f15258f1dadcfa6c/odoo/models.py#L5881-L5892
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/3e6d93bef49bb2718e8aa1756f95c2a6117c8d55/addons/purchase_stock/models/stock_move.py#L13-L15
the ```purchase_line_id``` will keep the link with the pol.
The fields are copied since they have ```copy=True``` https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/754898c58fded0e3c3c30702f15258f1dadcfa6c/addons/stock/models/stock_picking.py#L614 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/754898c58fded0e3c3c30702f15258f1dadcfa6c/odoo/fields.py#L304

Because new stock moves are linked directly to the Purchase Order Line (POL), the qty_received calculation aggregates all associated move quantities.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/cfc63060926db4cec773c159b8ecf97dc0b36d1a/addons/purchase_stock/models/purchase_order_line.py#L73-L76
opw-6088239

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276250
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#259570

**Problem:**
After partially invoicing a timesheet-delivered sale order line, a second invoice for the remaining delivered quantity can no longer be created.

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Install Sales and Timesheets
2. Sell a service invoiced on delivered timesheets
3. Log a timesheet covering the whole period
4. Create an invoice, reduce its quantity to part of the delivered amount, and post it
5. Create an invoice again for the rest

**Current behavior:**
"Cannot create an invoice. No items are available to invoice." is raised, even though qty_delivered - qty_invoiced is still positive.

**Expected behavior:**
A second invoice is created for the remaining delivered quantity.

**Cause of the issue:**
Since opw-6001094, `_recompute_qty_to_invoice` runs on every invoice creation, not only when a timesheet period is provided. It re-derives `qty_to_invoice` from un-invoiced timesheets alone. Posting the first invoice already linked every timesheet of the line (the linking ignores the invoiced quantity), so no un-invoiced timesheet is left, and `qty_to_invoice` is forced to 0 — discarding the still-billable remainder.

**Fix:**
Forcing the quantity to zero is only meaningful when the invoice is restricted to a timesheet period, where a line whose timesheets all fall outside that period genuinely has nothing to invoice. Without a period, the standard delivered-versus-invoiced quantity is the authoritative measure of what remains to bill, so the timesheet-based recomputation must not override it.

opw-6295941

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#274677

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------------
1. Install hr_timesheet and create a second company (e.g., Company B).
2. Create a global project (no company assigned) with timesheets enabled.
3. Share the project with edit access to a portal user belonging to Company A.4
4. Create a task, switch to Company B, and log a timesheet on the task.
5. Log in as the portal user and try to access the project.

Issue:
-------
An `Access to unauthorized or invalid companies exception` is raised,
preventing the portal user from accessing a project they are legitimately shared on.

Cause:
----------
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b7b3292b6a46c3dbc17aeee0183df0af318bf810/addons/project/controllers/portal.py#L159-L173 During `_prepare_project_sharing_session_info`, hr_timesheet overrides the company determination logic through `_get_project_sharing_company()`. https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b7b3292b6a46c3dbc17aeee0183df0af318bf810/addons/hr_timesheet/controllers/project.py#L13-L18

For global projects, the company is derived from an existing timesheet if one exists. As a result, creating a timesheet in another company causes that company to be injected into the sharing session as the current company.

Since the portal user does not have access to that company, opening the project triggers an access error.

Solution:
----------
Remove the `_get_project_sharing_company()` override. The base implementation already falls back to the portal user's own company when the project has no company assigned, ensuring the sharing session only contains companies the portal user is allowed to access.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b7b3292b6a46c3dbc17aeee0183df0af318bf810/addons/project/controllers/portal.py#L141-L142 
This allows portal users from Company A to continue accessing global projects without errors.

opw-6253960



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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277640
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#272161

Before this commit, validating transfers of several companies at once could assign a lot of one company to the move lines of another one, because the search for existing lots used a variable left over from a previous loop (the last move line iterated) instead of the company of the group of lines being checked.

Steps to reproduce:
- in a multi-company database, create a product tracked by lots
- create a lot with the same name for that product in each company
- create one receipt per company with that lot name typed in the detailed operations, select both receipts in the Transfers list view and validate them together

The lines of one company are linked to the lot of the other company and the validation is blocked by "Incompatible companies on records". When the lot only exists in one of the companies, the search misses it and the validation fails on the lot uniqueness constraint while recreating a lot that already exists.

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277227
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276688

Steps to reproduce
1. Go to Website Settings.
2. Configure the "Contact Us" form to create an Opportunity.
3. Select a "Default Sales Team" (ensure this team has a Team Leader set).
4. Leave the "Default Salesperson" field empty (None).
5. Submit the "Contact Us" form on the website.

Current behavior
The resulting Opportunity is automatically assigned to the Team Leader.

Expected behavior
The Opportunity should remain unassigned, respecting the empty
"Default Salesperson" configuration.

Issue
In https://github.com/odoo-dev/odoo/commit/d136e79d1ea0a4793ba9d447603e6f0e29b40770, a fallback was introduced to
explicitly assign the Team Leader (`team_id.user_id`) whenever a team was
present but a salesperson was not, provided rule-based assignment was disabled:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/d136e79d1ea0a4793ba9d447603e6f0e29b40770/addons/website_crm/models/crm_lead.py#L55-L56

This incorrectly overrides the intentional configuration in the website
settings. Additionally, in https://github.com/odoo-dev/odoo/commit/ba6a5ddc8dec971f8b810dfad3d9934e7b581c91, the
website_form_input_filter was made to fall back to request.website.crm_default_team_id
and crm_default_user_id when the form did not submit those fields:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ba6a5ddc8dec971f8b810dfad3d9934e7b581c91/addons/website_crm/models/crm_lead.py#L14-L17

The Contact Us form already passes the configured team and salesperson as
hidden inputs. When they are not configured, nothing is submitted for those
fields. The fallback to request.website caused leads to be assigned a team
even when neither field was intentionally configured, because crm_default_team_id
defaults to the first sales team on website creation.

opw-6050663

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#257134

# Setup
You'll need two users :
	- Internal User A that can create projects
	- User B with a granted portal access

Optionnal third user to compare the flows :
	- Internal User B that can create tasks in a porject

# How to reproduce
- With User A, create a new project with atleast a single stage
- Go to the project settings
- Make sure that Visibility is set to : "All internal users and invited portal users"
- Click on Share Project
- Add User B as a new Collaborator with the Edit acess mode
- Confirm by clicking on Share Project
- Still in the project settings, click on the blue user icon in the top right to edit the Followers :
	- Make sure you are following the project
	- Click on the edit button and make sure Task Created is checked

 Optionnal for easiness of testing :
 - Go to the User A settings and in Preferences > Notifications : In Odoo

- Log in with User B (in a new incognito tab on the side is best)
- Go to Projects > The project that has been shared
- Create a new task

# The problem
No notification is sent to User A. If the same flow is done using User C, then a notification is correctly sent.

# Cause
The fields that determine to which users the notifications are
sent to is `message_follower_ids`. In our case, the value
of that field does not contain User A, so no notifcation is sent
to them.

The method responsible for assigning values to that field is
`_message_auto_subscribe()` which adds follower using
subtypes parent relationship. The parent subtype of tasks are
projects. So, essentially, we look for followers of the parent project,
and see if we can add them to our task.

Before proceeding with the assignation, we check that the parent
subtype's field was actually edited :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ea18f34a48d61350f80c79894bef66bf02840bfc/addons/mail/models/mail_thread.py#L4778-L4781

So we look that `updated_values` contains "project_id".
`updated_values` is created by the the `mail_thread`
create method by joining the values in `vals_list` and
the context default variables. In our case, this should be enough
since `default_project_id` is provided when creating
a task :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ea18f34a48d61350f80c79894bef66bf02840bfc/addons/mail/models/mail_thread.py#L340-L344

But, a bit before this, the task create method edits the context to replace 'default_project_id' by 'default_create_in_project_id' :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ea18f34a48d61350f80c79894bef66bf02840bfc/addons/project/models/project_task.py#L1102-L1109

So we do not detect that `project_id` has been changed and don't actually add the followers.

# Proposed solution
We remove the custom 'default_create_in_project_id` context

opw-6026932

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#258905

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

report_stock_quantity uses m.quantity instead of the done quantity converted to the product's base UoM when computing the forecast for done inter-warehouse moves. This causes incorrect forecast values when a done stock move uses a UoM with a factor greater than 1.

Current behavior before PR:

When a done inter-warehouse move uses a UoM with factor > 1 (e.g. a box of 25 units), the forecast only subtracts the raw done quantity (e.g. 2 boxes) instead of the converted quantity in the product's base UoM (e.g. 50 units). This causes the forecast chart to show incorrect negative values before the move date.

Steps to reporduce:

- Create a storable product with base UoM = Units
- Create a UoM "Box of 25" with factor = 25 in the Units category, and add it to the product's allowed UoMs
- Create a second warehouse
- Do an inventory adjustment of 800 units into warehouse 1
- Create an inter-warehouse transfer of 2 "Box of 25" (= 50 units) from warehouse 1 to warehouse 2 and validate it
- Open the forecast chart for the product filtered to warehouse 1

Desired behavior after PR is merged:

The forecast report for done inter-warehouse moves correctly converts the done quantity to the product's base UoM using the move's UoM factor, so the forecast chart shows accurate values regardless of the UoM used on the move.


opw-6266745


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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#271766

Problem:
When computing inventory valuation or available quantities for a date in the past (using the  context), the system calculates the past quantity by taking the current stock quants and rolling back the stock moves that occurred after the requested date.

However, when the environment context specified an ownership filter (e.g.,  to calculate company-owned valuation), this filter was only being applied to the  domain. The rollback domains for incoming and outgoing  records remained completely open.

As a result, the system would correctly see 0 company-owned current stock, but it would erroneously subtract incoming consigned stock moves from that balance. This resulted in an artificially negative past quantity and a negative inventory valuation for company-owned stock.

Solution:
This commit ensures the  context is applied symmetrically by filtering the rollback moves via the  field. The
time-travel calculation will now only evaluate stock moves that match the queried ownership context.

Steps to reproduce (runbot v19):
- Consignment enabled
- FIFO perpetual product w/ nonzero value
1. Create an inventory adjustment for an internal location, set the owner on the quant
2. Create a delivery for this product, but don't zero out all of the available stock
3. Go to Accounting > Review > Inventory Valuation, and set the At Date to something far in the past, before any move history in the db. The product's current on hand value will appear in ending stock, but negative.

opw-6300582

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#270409

**Issue:**
When an employee uses a fully fixed duration based working schedule and each half-day attendance has a decimal duration such as 3.36h, a multi-day half-day time off request can compute a decimal duration such as 5.01 days. This is inconsistent with half-day time off types, which should consume time in half-day increments.

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Create an employee with a fully fixed duration-based schedule
- Set morning and afternoon attendances to 3.36 hours for each weekday
- Create a time off type with duration type set to half-day
- Create a time off request for the employee (e.g. Monday to Friday)
- The computed duration is 5.01 days instead of 5 days

**Cause:**
For half-day time off types, `number_of_days` was taken from generic calendar interval computation. https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/19c0e59cc37c7671f13cbda1b2d4850a7731eade/addons/hr_holidays/models/hr_leave.py#L585-L593 On duration-based schedules, this computation returns day values rounded at 0.001 precision, so decimal drift (e.g. 5.01) can appear, Since no final rounding to half-day steps was applied, half-day requests could end with non-half-day values.

**Solution:**
Round computed durations for half-day time off types to the nearest half-day increment.

opw-6215768

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#267726