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

Problem:
When testing importing a bank statement, an error gets thrown although the import is correct.

Steps:
1. Go to Accounting
2. Go to Bank -> Import
3. Download the Import Template
4. Try importing the template
5. Select to Create New Values in case of absent values
6. Test the import
7. Notice the error "Record *** does not exist ..."

Cause:
When testing an import of bank statement, the importing of the bank statement lines is done first and then they are linked to a new bank statement, if needed.
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/831cc0201b128d82ce08a3f97b207859d8904870/account_bank_statement_import_csv/wizard/account_bank_statement_import_csv.py#L140-L145 This gets rolled back in case of testing (dryrun)
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/831cc0201b128d82ce08a3f97b207859d8904870/account_bank_statement_import_csv/wizard/account_bank_statement_import_csv.py#L152 However, because the importing of the bank statement lines is a full test import of its own:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/831cc0201b128d82ce08a3f97b207859d8904870/account_bank_statement_import_csv/wizard/account_bank_statement_import_csv.py#L140 it gets rolled back before the lines can be linked to a new bank statement, resulting in the error of missing records.

This didn't happen before because the BaseImport would not flush the cache when rolling back the changes, so the statement lines would still be in the cache and then can get linked to the statement. But after this commit: odoo/odoo@06889bd , where the savepoint in the BaseImport changed to a flushing savepoint:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/06889bd62465fa20c79084b3027e0e917a55a8c8#diff-f7ea8dfd301f732f65b95439f68b7d124dd274fb2130a2aba037c9c17ceb963fL1441-R1439 when the importing of bank statement lines gets rolled back, the lines get flushed from the cache and cannot be linked to the newly created bank statement.

Solution:
There's no need to test linking the imported lines to a newly created bank statement. We can skip creating the bank statement if it is a test import (dryrun).

opw-6404000

Problem:
Users cannot change analytic distribution set on employees. Users encounter an error when trying to change it.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Enable analytic accounting
2. Try to edit the analytic distribution field on an Employee
3. Notice the error being thrown when trying to save

Cause:
Analytic distribution field is a JSON field and JSON field and tracking is not supported on JSON fields.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/2aa35eb9c7a709126dca65e81ca6e823706fbb19/addons/mail/models/mail_tracking_value.py#L172
Tracking is supported for other fields but is not supported for JSON fields, so setting tracking=True on a JSON fields leads to an error being thrown. The error gets thrown whenever the field is edited.

Caused by 88a3e70 , as a result of this comment
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0133e46f89df7dce8c39d2bacd29579d57a83fad/addons/hr/models/hr_version.py#L443

that mentioned that whitelisted fields should have tracking set to true.
However, that's not necessary.

opw-6405122

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#125135

### 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#125210
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124698

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 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

### 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#125210
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124698

Problem:
Users cannot change analytic distribution set on employees. Users encounter an error when trying to change it.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Enable analytic accounting
2. Try to edit the analytic distribution field on an Employee
3. Notice the error being thrown when trying to save

Cause:
Analytic distribution field is a JSON field and JSON field and tracking is not supported on JSON fields.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/2aa35eb9c7a709126dca65e81ca6e823706fbb19/addons/mail/models/mail_tracking_value.py#L172
Tracking is supported for other fields but is not supported for JSON fields, so setting tracking=True on a JSON fields leads to an error being thrown. The error gets thrown whenever the field is edited.

Caused by 88a3e70 , as a result of this comment
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0133e46f89df7dce8c39d2bacd29579d57a83fad/addons/hr/models/hr_version.py#L443

that mentioned that whitelisted fields should have tracking set to true.
However, that's not necessary.

opw-6405122

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#125135

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

**Steps to reproduce the issue:**

- Install the l10n_mx_edi module.
- Open the Accounting app and go to Customers → Invoices.
- From the invoice line, make the Tax Object field visible.
- Create a new invoice and add a product that has no Unit Price.
- Save the invoice.
- Edit the same invoice, set a Unit Price for the product, and save it again.
- Issue: The Tax Object field is not automatically set after the Unit Price is added.

**Description:**

- In our standard code, there is a condition that skips computing the Tax Object when the Unit Price is [0](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/615a5f756d708db95e22cdbdd6e7aca72ac769ec/l10n_mx_edi/models/account_move.py#L988). This is the expected behavior.
- However, after setting a Unit Price on the product, the Tax Object is not recomputed, so it remains unset.
- To resolve this issue, I added price_unit to the @api.depends decorator so that the Tax Object is recomputed whenever the Unit Price changes.

**Reference videos:**

Before the fix:
[screen-capture (2).webm](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/c1162fd9-52b8-4a8c-9ac2-39cf2ca3ad69)


After the fix:
[screen-capture (1).webm](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/1c05dc34-6778-487a-9bfc-635cf652e670)


OPW -6305080 
UPG - 4268848

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123009

### 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

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

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

## Problem

When generating an export CFE (e-Factura Exportación) in the Uruguayan EDI module, invoices that include a discount line equal to the subtotal — resulting in a **total of 0.00** — were not handled correctly by the XML/CFE generation
logic.

This use case is valid and required by exporters who need to reflect the declared value of goods/services while invoicing at zero (e.g. to comply with customs or incoterm requirements such as FCA). In Uruware's validation portal, the "Descuentos y Recargos" (discounts & surcharges) section of the subtotal block must be correctly populated for the CFE to be accepted.

**Example:** An invoice with a line of 648.00 UYU and a global discount of −648.00 UYU → Total: 0.00. The export value is still declared, taxes are zero, but the CFE must reflect the discount amount explicitly.

<img width="592" height="679" alt="example_expo_invoice_discount" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/aa83c158-e342-4da5-a251-fc209bbed5c4" />

## Root Cause

The CFE template (`cfe_template.xml`) and the move computation logic (`account_move.py`) did not account for the case where export invoices carry line-level or global discounts that zero out the total. The discount amount was
either omitted from the XML nodes or computed incorrectly, causing Uruware validation to fail or the discount block to not render.

## Fix

- **`l10n_uy_edi/models/account_move.py`** — Updated the export invoice computation to correctly include discount amounts in the CFE data dict, ensuring the `ValorDR` is filled with the value of the discount per line.
- **`l10n_uy_edi/views/cfe_template.xml`** — Adjusted the template condition so `MntExpoyAsim` node accepts 0 as value.

## Steps to Reproduce (before fix)

1. Create an export invoice (e-Factura Exportación) for a foreign partner.
2. Add a product line with a unit price, e.g. 216.00 × 3 = 648.00 UYU.
3. Add a global discount of 648.00 (same amount) so the total is 0.00.
4. Confirm and send to Uruware — the CFE is rejected / discount block is missing.

## Verification

After the fix, the same invoice generates a valid CFE accepted by Uruware with the discount correctly reflected in the `DscRcgGlobal` node and the discount line visible on the printed document.

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120130

### Issue before this commit:
When reverting a Guatemalan invoice (creating a credit note), the XML node FechaEmisionDocumentoOrigen incorrectly reports the EDI document's technical certification date instead of the original invoice's emission date. This causes the SAT to reject the document.

### Steps to reproduce the issue:
1. Download Accounting and l10n_gt
2. Revert an invoice (credit note) inserting a different date than the one of the invoice
3. See that FechaEmisionDocumentoOrigen report the date of the credit note instead of the one of the invoice

### Cause of the issue:
The _l10n_gt_edi_add_reference_values method extracted the date from original_document.datetime (the technical timestamp of when the XML was generated) rather than using the actual accounting date of the original invoice.

### Reason to introduce the fix:
SAT validation rules strictly require the reference date to match the exact commercial emission date of the original invoice. Fetching invoice_date directly ensures compliance, avoids timezone conversion errors, and prevents the XML from being rejected.
Source: https://www.lawinsider.com/es/contracts/dJXl4Vo79L2

<img width="730" height="205" alt="2026-07-17_10-19" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/802e7bb3-fcf9-48db-b86f-227b494001b6" />

opw-6394409

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124794

### Steps to reproduce:

- In the settings enable: "Storage Locations" and "Consignment"
- Create a storable product and put 1 unit in stock with a set owner
- Go to the barcode app > Operations > Delivery Orders > New
- Scan your product and validate
#### > The owner was not set on the stock move line so that a new quant was created and updated in stock rather than using the available unit.

### Cause of the issue:

The mechanism of prefilling an owner or a package in the barcode app is currently gate-kept behind the existence of a lot name: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/0be4f71de3420fb9b72fd4e70d48c6cbbbc0ecb4/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L1382-L1407
However, the option also make sense for none tracked products.

### Note:

Performing the flow form the backend and adding quantity will generate the move line by setting the owner if possible since the quantity of a move is set via the back end, move lines are generated by looking at the existing quant data's:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5d61c03b33c9a915684dd59656f8be7612956dd1/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L2364 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5d61c03b33c9a915684dd59656f8be7612956dd1/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L2328-L2330
Setting the same owner on the new move line as on the quant we are going to reserve:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5d61c03b33c9a915684dd59656f8be7612956dd1/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L2337 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5d61c03b33c9a915684dd59656f8be7612956dd1/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1715

Additional subtelties appearing when prefilling for non tracked product:

1. Currently the available quantity is not taken into account to determine if the the value provided to the prefilled is actually
relevant, in particular if there is a quant with an available quantity of 0, it will be used as a valid value to prefill and it will parasit the prefill that could be done by other quants.

2. The location source used to determine the quants taken into account is not set on the first scan since the scan is performed without any existing line:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/4f0d25f9fe4ca8ff1b0ecd7900899a2a246ba888/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L1387
> This was not problematic with respect to tracked product since the product needs to be scanned prior to the lot, hence there is always a current line when the the lot is scanned.

opw-6050657

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#115021

By Mexican labor law, employees are entitled to at least one paid rest day per week (commonly known as the Seventh Day). Depending on the contract, some schedules provide two rest days.

There are two ways to pay this concept:
* Fixed amount: The employee receives the full daily salary regardless of absences (already supported).
* Prorated amount: Applies strictly to weekly and 14-days schedule pays. The payment is proportional to the actual time worked during the period (new feature).

The prorated seventh day is calculated using the following formula: `accrued_days * work_rate * daily_salary`

Where:
* Accrued days: Actual days/hours worked in the period.
* Work rate: A proportional factor based on the rest days and working days per week: `rest_days / working_days_per_week`. Rest days are dynamically calculated using the `hours_per_day` and `hours_per_week` fields from the `resource_calendar_id`.
* Daily salary: Retrieved from the `l10n_mx_daily_salary` field.

EXAMPLE 1: WEEKLY SCHEDULE WITH 1 REST DAY
For a wage of 7,000 MXN weekly (daily wage = 1,000 MXN), the rate is `1/6 = 0.16666`.
The payment depends on the worked days:

| Worked Days | Seventh Day Amount Paid            |
| ----------- | ---------------------------------- |
| 1           | 1 * 0.16666 * 1,000 =   166.67 MXN |
| 2           | 2 * 0.16666 * 1,000 =   333.33 MXN |
| 3           | 3 * 0.16666 * 1,000 =   500.00 MXN |
| 4           | 4 * 0.16666 * 1,000 =   666.67 MXN |
| 5           | 5 * 0.16666 * 1,000 =   833.33 MXN |
| 6           | 6 * 0.16666 * 1,000 = 1,000.00 MXN |

EXAMPLE 2: WEEKLY SCHEDULE WITH 2 REST DAYS
For the same daily wage, but with a 5-day workweek, the rate is 2/5 = 0.4.

| Worked Days | Seventh Day Amount Paid          |
| ----------- | -------------------------------- |
| 1           | 1 * 0.40000 * 1,000 =   400.00 MXN |
| 5           | 5 * 0.40000 * 1,000 = 2,000.00 MXN |

* Add test_cfdi_nomina_con_septimo_dia test

target: master
task-5259458

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124945

To reproduce the issue:

1) Initialize a company in Belgium, create the tax returns 2) Submit the VAT return from January
3) Open the lock date wizard. The tax lock date is January 31st. 4) Add a lock date exception removing the tax lock date just for you, for 5 min. 5) Reset January's return
6) Reopen the lock date wizard.
    ====> Your exception is still there, but the tax lock date for everyone has been reset to December 31st.

This is plain wrong. Resetting a return should not automatically reopen the period for everyone. Lock dates exceptions/modifications are anyway required to reset the return ; they should pilot the whole flow. Nothing being magically hidden from the user means there can't be someone else mistakenly encoding something into the reopened period.

Another fix was required to make this one work: setting the tax lock date before submitting the return should work. In bigger environments, users might want to do that as a first step to reduce the number of people encoding data before actually doing the submission of the return. Therefore, the case where the tax lock date is already set at the date_to of the return when submitting it was supposed to be already supported, and allow the creation of the closing entry for that return, despite it being on the tax lock date. The test ensuring this was however badly written, and the feature didn't work: the closing was created at a later date than the lock date automatically, due to the Bills' Algorithm.

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124872
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124811

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#125229
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#121755

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

Issue
-----
Delivery does not always work from/to some cities in Colombia, like Antioquia.

Cause
-----
There was an oversight in fix 7654c55 where only 5 digit postal codes taken from the colombian localisation were padded in

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/390acf532e8932fd9b9a708382a5e36cdbb35754/delivery_envia/models/envia_request.py#L726-L727

However, some of the colombian cities listed in `l10n_co_edi/data/res.city.csv` have 4 digit codes (like `SANTA FÉ DE ANTIOQUIA`, code `5042`).

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/7cceddaf086d849b8e2121e1023ef3479397534f/l10n_co_edi/data/res.city.csv#L12


These 4 digit codes have to be right-padded to 5 characters before the left-padding to match the official colombian zip codes. See colombian gov official document (PDF download) where the code is actually `05042`.

https://www.dane.gov.co/files/censo2005/provincias/subregiones.pdf

-----
Ticket:
opw-6248252

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123344
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120164

[FIX] documents_{hr|sign}: employee docs button for signed contracts
Bug reproduction:

1 - In saas-19.4, install documents_hr and hr_contract_salary with demo data
2 - As Mitchell Admin, go to Employees, open one, click on "Offers - New"
3 - Select employee_contract.pdf as PDF Template
4 - Use the button "Salary configurator" to fill in the configurator, review it and sign it.
5 - Go back to the backend, find the contract in Sign and sign it.
6 - Go back to the Employee form view, the Documents stat button shows 0 document when it should be 1.
7 - Click the stat button and you see 0 documents in Documents when there should be one.

Bug cause:

1 - The document is created for the employee in documents app
    but smart button cannot open those
2 - The res_model of the documents.document is hr.version for signed doc
    -> it is not hr.employee
3 - In current implementation:
    3.1 -> only hr.employee's documents appear after that smart button

Bug solution:

1 - _compute_document_count is reimplemented:
    -> to count also documents with res_model as hr.version
2 - override _get_documents_domain:
    -> to add version domain as an alternative with OR
        -> to get documents with res_model='hr.version'

Test:

1 - Unit test is added
2 - Create documents with the archived versions of the employee
    -> and observe the document count of the employee

Note:

-> Also, we changed the final document name in documents of the employee

task-6373620

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123763

Steps to reproduce
---
1. Enable Storage Locations, Lots & Serial Numbers and Packages.
2. Put a lot of a product inside a package located in Section 2.
3. In the Barcode app, start an inventory count, scan Section 1, then scan the product and the lot (without scanning the package).
4. Odoo fills the package from Section 2 on the Section 1 count line; validating fails because the same package cannot be in two locations.

Issue
---
When a product/lot is scanned, _processBarcode prefills package_id from a matching quant, but the location it passes to the lookup at
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/c30ca22971fb1418f08c5543c646497ffdebbd13/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L1506-L1507 is read only from the current line, which does
not exist yet while a new line is being created, so locationId is false. With no location, getQuants takes the branch at
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/c30ca22971fb1418f08c5543c646497ffdebbd13/stock_barcode/static/src/lazy_barcode_cache.js#L151-L155 that collects quants across every location, so the
lot's quant stored in another location is matched and its package is copied onto the count line.

opw-6273909

**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

### Steps to reproduce:

- Ensure `sale_stock_renting` is installed
- Enable Multi-Steps Routes > Unarchive MTO
- Create a product P with a BoM and the routes MTO + manufacture
- Create anc confirm a sale order for A unit of P
- Log in with an other user with with mrp User rights and sales User: Own Documents Only (he should not have access to the SO)
- Open the MO, add a component line and save
#### > Access Error: Blame the following rule: - Personal Order

### Cause of the issue:

Writing on the `move_raw_ids` will trigger a call of the `_autoconfirm_production` in order to confirm the newly created move: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/e447f4849056a0aab35966fb6ba595ebaadb79ab/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L990-L991 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/e447f4849056a0aab35966fb6ba595ebaadb79ab/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L1422-L1423
During this confirmation process, one calls the `_merge_moves` method in order to  merge this new move (if relevant) to any already existing one. https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/e447f4849056a0aab35966fb6ba595ebaadb79ab/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1575-L1576
Now, the issue is that, `sale_stock_renting` module overrides the method `_prepare_merge_moves_distinct_fields` determining the fields relevant to the merge by requiring a read access to the `is_rental_order` compute field of the `sale_order` linked to the MO:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/b66097122ba3a758734ac6fb2b26579c35cb72c2/sale_stock_renting/models/stock_move.py#L34-L40
However, due to the 'Personal Orders' ir.rule, the user does not have a read access to this record:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/e447f4849056a0aab35966fb6ba595ebaadb79ab/addons/sale/security/ir_rules.xml#L44-L49

Community: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/271017

opw-6275658

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#121510
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#121135

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

Steps to reproduce the bug:
- Create a BOM for product P1 with one work order WO1
- Create 3 quality points linked to WO1 via the `operation_id` field
- Confirm a manufacturing order for P1:
    - 3 quality checks A → B → C are generated
- Open the shop floor for the work order:
    - Observe that all 3 quality checks are displayed
- Delete quality check B (the middle one)
- come back to the shop floor for the work order:
- Observe that quality check C is no longer displayed in the shop floor

Problem:
After deleting check B, check C disappeared from the shop floor. Quality checks are stored as a doubly-linked list via the `next_check_id` and `previous_check_id` fields on `quality.check`. The shop floor JS (`mrp_display_record.js`) traverses this list starting from the check with no `previous_check_id`, then follows `next_check_id` until the chain ends. When check B was deleted, it nullified the FK references pointing to it, leaving check A with `next_check_id = False` and check C with `previous_check_id = False`. The traversal from A therefore stopped immediately, and C was never reached.

No `unlink` override existed on `quality.check` to repair the chain before deletion.

Solution:
Added an `unlink` override that, before deleting each check, reconnects its predecessor and successor: if the deleted check has both a previous and a next, `prev.next_check_id` is set to `next` and `next.previous_check_id` is set to `prev`, preserving a valid chain for the remaining checks.

opw-6369298