### Issue before this commit:
Sending a TicketBAI invoice to a customer with a Spanish address and a VAT number starting with 'N' (Non-resident entity) resulted in a rejection with error B4_2000027. The XML incorrectly generated the national <DesgloseFactura> tag instead of the required <DesgloseTipoOperacion> tag.

### Steps to reproduce the issue:
1. Download Accounting, l10n_es and l10n_es_edi_tbai
2. Change name to ES Company into “NOMBRE APELLIDOUNO APELLIDODOS” (this is to make sure the certificate for Ticketbai works)
3. Go to Settings → Spain Localization → set Tax Agency for = Bizkaia
4. Change VAT number for customer Mulhacén Digital S.L. into N0011452J (must be a foreign entity ID)
5. Go to Settings > Technical > System Parameters and set the parameter 'l10n_es_edi_tbai.epigrafe' to 165360
6. Create a new invoice for that client and try to send it to TicketBAI
7. Error:  B4_1000002: Todos los registros incluidos en la petición son incorrectos. B4_2000027: La factura contiene un Tipo de desglose incorrecto. Ha de ser a nivel de operación cuando la factura es completa y, además, existe destinatario extranjero (tipo IDOtro o que sea NIF que empiece por N) o la Clave de IVA es 02.

### Cause of the issue:
The _l10n_es_is_foreign() method evaluated these customers as domestic because their country was set to Spain and their VAT did not start with "ESN". It failed to recognize a standalone "N" prefix as a valid foreign identifier.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/75ae45861e2f417aa2b90bdb2b2869718e091c09/addons/l10n_es/models/res_partner.py#L7-L10


### Reason to introduce the fix:
Adding the 'N' prefix to the _l10n_es_is_foreign() check ensures the system correctly treats these entities as foreign for tax purposes. This generates the correct XML structure automatically, without forcing users to unnaturally prepend "ES" to a legally valid NIF.

opw-6326359

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277816
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275231

Issue:
- After confirming a sale order with a reward applied (e.g. an ewallet reward), unlocking it, and editing it so the reward line's cost changes (e.g. adding a product and re-claiming the reward), the coupon's point balance updates correctly.
- However, the corresponding loyalty.history record's used value is never refreshed, so it keeps showing the old cost instead of the new one.

Steps to reproduce:
- Enable Loyalty and Lock Confirmed Sales in Sales settings.
- Create an ewallet type loyalty.program and generate an ewallet for a partner with e.g. 1000 points.
- Create a sale order for that partner, add a product worth 100, and claim the ewallet reward (reward line created with points_cost = 100).
- Confirm the order. loyalty.history shows used = 100 (correct), card balance shows 900 (correct).
- Unlock the order, add a second product worth 100, and claim the reward again (same reward line updates to points_cost = 200).
- Lock the order again.
- Check the loyalty.card: balance is correctly 800.
- Check loyalty.history for that order: used still shows 100 instead of 200.

Fix:
- Updated _update_loyalty_history() in sale_order.py to create a new history line if none exists 
  for the given card and order combination.
- Updated write() in sale_order_line.py to correctly sync history lines when a reward line is 
  modified on a confirmed order, handling both same-coupon updates via delta and coupon 
  changes by subtracting the old coupon cost and adding the new one separately.
- Added test_loyalty_history_created_on_post_confirm_reward to verify that a history line is created 
  when a reward is claimed on a confirmed order where no history line existed before.
- Added test_loyalty_history_updated_on_points_cost_write to verify that history.used is updated by the 
  correct delta when points_cost changes on a reward line of a confirmed order.

Impact:
- Ensures a coupon's usage history stays accurate after a confirmed order is unlocked and edited.
- Prevents the loyalty.history used field from silently going stale while the actual point balance is correct.
- Not scoped to ewallet specifically — since points_cost semantics are the same across program types, this also corrects the same class of staleness for other reward types (discount, gift_card, etc.) when a reward line's cost changes post-confirmation.

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277450
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#273688

### 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

When matching Purchase Order lines with Vendor Bill lines from the Bill Matching view,
if a PO and its vendor bill each contain several lines for the same product,
all bill lines of that product get matched to the first PO line only.
The remaining PO line(s) stay unmatched and are then added back
to the bill as new (duplicate) lines.

Steps:

- Create a purchase order with two lines for the same product and confirm
- Create a draft bill with the same configuration and same partner
- From the PO, click on "Bill matching" button
- Select the 4 lines and click on the "Match" button
-> On the purchase order, first line has qty_invoiced == 2 and the
   second one 0
-> On the bill, there is an additional line with 0 quantity

This is because we only match the first order line in case of having more than
one line with the same product. Then we add the remaining order lines to
the bill.
With this commit we match each line that need to be matched and we add
lines to the bill only if all order lines have been invoiced.

opw-6279755

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#269496

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

## Problem
In shop floor, MOs with unplanned work orders get sorted before MOs that have planned operations, which contradicts the normal nulls last sorting for work orders.

## Solution
We will update the sorting logic in the MrpDisplay component to more gracefully handle falsy date_start values, sorting them to the end.

## Steps to reproduce (runbot 19)
1. Create 2 MOs with an operation (work order) involving a work center, we'll call them A and B.
2. Open Shop Floor and open the work center that the MOs' work orders belong to, and note they are ordered A, B (this is fine, neither are planned so the precedence falls back to id
3. Go back to MO B and plan it. This should give it precedence in Shop Floor
4. Under the work center in Shop Floor, note that the MOs are still ordered A, B, despite B's work order having a start date and A's work order not having one

To further motivate this being unintended, you can go to Manufacturing > Operations > Work Orders, and you'll see MO B's work order sitting at the top of the list.

opw-6303323

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123983
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#121693

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

In the ReportEditorIframe component, the iframe may be removed at some point, to be replaced by another one. The problem is that the editor is destroyed only when the new iframe is loaded, so there is a period of time in which the previous editor is alive, but the iframe is destroyed. It can causes issues with plugins, which assumes that we have a valid editable zone. For example, here is a common traceback:

test_print_preview (odoo.addons.web_studio.tests.test_report_editor.TestReportEditorUIUnit.test_print_preview)

Error received after termination: TypeError: Cannot read properties of null (reading 'getComputedStyle')
    at http://127.0.0.1:8069/web/assets/e9a3359/web.assets_web.min.js:16264:290
    at Array.filter (<anonymous>)
    at ToolbarPlugin.getFilteredTargetedNodes (http://127.0.0.1:8069/web/assets/e9a3359/web.assets_web.min.js:16264:201)
    at ToolbarPlugin._updateToolbar (http://127.0.0.1:8069/web/assets/e9a3359/web.assets_web.min.js:16259:83)
    at http://127.0.0.1:8069/web/assets/e9a3359/web.assets_web.min.js:5325:117

The fix is to subscibe to the removal of the iframe, and destroy immediately the editor.

`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

**Description**
Opening the Budget Report from any budget record times out on databases
with significant data volume. The request to
`budget.report/formatted_read_grouping_sets` consistently times out,
making the Budget Report completely unusable.

**Root cause:**
`budget.report` is an SQL view that consists of 5 UNION ALL branches.
When the list view loads, the ORM translates the `budget_analytic_id`
domain into a WHERE clause on the outer query wrapping the full UNION
ALL subquery. PostgreSQL cannot push this filter through a UNION ALL as
it's a hard optimization barrier. It must fully materialize the subquery
regardless of which budget is being viewed.

**Fix:**
Override _search on budget.report to extract budget_analytic_id and
budget_line_id conditions from the incoming domain using the Domain API.
budget_line_id is rewritten as Domain('id', op, value) so _to_sql()
correctly emits bl.id in the raw SQL. The resulting domain is injected
in context under budget_line_domain and read in _get_bl_query,
_get_aal_query (base module), and _get_pol_query (purchase module) to
filter budget_line rows inside each branch's LEFT JOIN ON clause.
This also removes the budget_report_budget_line_ids context key from
budget_line._compute_all, unifying both filters under one mechanism.

---

On customer DB (568k `account_analytic_line`, 27k `budget_line`,
116k confirmed `purchase_order_line`, 114k posted vendor bill lines
with purchase link):

| Budget | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| 8 lines, 730d span | timeout | 2.27s |
| 14 lines | timeout | 2.39s |
| 14 lines, 1095d span | timeout | 1.63s |

- Before: https://explain.dalibo.com/plan/ehed5eb8de251426
- After: https://explain.dalibo.com/plan/db8aef35cag9hg6f

opw-6098047

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120707
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#114692

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 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

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

[FIX] website_sale: preserve parent company link on address update

When a portal user linked to a company (B2B) edits their address during
website checkout, the backend partner form subsequently loses the visual
link to their parent company and incorrectly displays a "Create company"
button instead.

This occurs because the checkout form submits the company name as a raw
text string (`company_name`). This string gets passed in the payload and
is written to the contact's record. In the backend `res.partner` form
view, the presence of data in the `company_name` field triggers UI
modifiers that hide the `parent_id` relational field and switch to the
B2C company creation flow.

This commit resolves the issue by conditionally removing `company_name`
from the payload if the user already has a `parent_id`. This ensures the
raw text is safely ignored for B2B users, keeping the backend UI intact
while preserving the expected behavior for unlinked B2C users.

opw-6374326

**Steps to Reproduce:**

- Contacts > New
  - Set type to “Company”, any name, any Tax ID
  - (On same page) > Contacts & Addresses > Add
    - Set type to “Contact”, set any name/email
- Access the previously created (individual) contact > settings/gear icon > grant portal access > Grant Access
- Access the (individual) contact user form > settings/gear icon > Change Password > (any)
- Log in as portal user > add item to cart > checkout > Modify address and save
- Access the created (individual) contact again
  - Observe “Create company” button despite partner_id being set. In addition, the company name is shown correctly, but no link appears


**Current behavior before PR:**

- When a portal user linked to a company edits their address during website checkout, the backend partner form stores the company_name field and hides the link to the parent company while displaying a "Create company" button

**Desired behavior after PR is merged:**

- Portal users linked to a company should be able to edit their address without losing UI links to the parent company in the partner form

### Contains the following commits:

https://github.com/odoo/o-spreadsheet/commit/6a6cc73650 [REL] 18.0.76 [Task: 0](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/2328/tasks/0)
https://github.com/odoo/o-spreadsheet/commit/5832d8abe3 [FIX] HeaderVisibility: fix `getNextVisibleCellPosition` getter [Task: 6340589](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/2328/tasks/6340589)
https://github.com/odoo/o-spreadsheet/commit/c93ad33981 [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>

Version:
--------
- 18.0+

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
- Install `stock` module
- Configure a multi-company environment with a `Main Company`
 and a `Secondary Company`
- Go to the setting enable Lots & Serial Numbers and switch into 
`Secondary Company`
- Create a warehouse for the Secondary Company
- In the Secondary Company, create a lot-tracked storable product
- Create and validate a delivery for that product
- Open the Traceability Report
- Print the report

Issue:
------
The report header always displays the Main Company, even though the
traceability report belongs entirely to the Secondary Company.

Cause:
------

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/2d54db3ac0b6d807e580315e2633f3e2b10a700c/addons/stock/static/src/client_actions/stock_traceability_report_backend.xml#L9

Clicking Print calls onClickPrint(), which builds the PDF URL and
downloads it with download() (a plain XMLHttpRequest POST), landing on
the `type='http'` route `/stock/<output_format>/<report_name>` 

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/3bd6b10c3f9ad8d93062b6b46490500edb8c9697/addons/stock/static/src/client_actions/stock_traceability_report_backend.js#L125-L134

That controller calls stock.traceability.report.get_pdf() without ever setting
 `company_id` in the rendering context.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/3bd6b10c3f9ad8d93062b6b46490500edb8c9697/addons/stock/controllers/main.py#L23

Inside `get_pdf()`, the report header is rendered by passing an `rcontext`
dict to `web.internal_layout`. 

That template resolves the company to display using the following priority:

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/3bd6b10c3f9ad8d93062b6b46490500edb8c9697/addons/web/views/report_templates.xml#L805-L816

  1. `company_id`  — an explicit company record in the render context
  2. `o.company_id` — the company of the document object `o`
  3. `res_company`  — the fallback, injected by `_render_template()` as
                      `self.env.company`

Because `get_pdf()` never sets `company_id` or `o` in `rcontext`, the
template always falls through to `res_company`.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/3bd6b10c3f9ad8d93062b6b46490500edb8c9697/odoo/addons/base/models/ir_actions_report.py#L770

 This is populated by `ir.actions.report._render_template()` 
as `self.env.company`, which resolves to the first company in
 the user's `allowed_company_ids` list — typically the main company 
regardless of which company owns the lot,
picking, or stock moves being printed.

As a result, the report content belongs to the secondary company while the
header always shows the main company.

Fix:
----
Resolve the company from the record on which the traceability report is
opened (using `active_model` and `active_id`) and pass it explicitly as
`company_id` when rendering the report.

`web.internal_layout` already gives precedence to an explicit
`company_id` over the default `res_company`, ensuring the report header
always displays the company that owns the traced record.

When the record has no company set, the header falls back to
`res_company`. Since the print request is a raw `type='http'` download
that never receives the company switcher's context, `user.context`
(holding `allowed_company_ids`) is now forwarded in the download POST
and merged into the environment by the controller - as done in
`web/controllers/report.py` - so the fallback resolves to the currently
active company instead of the user's default one.



<details>
  <summary>Click here to see the results:</summary>

  <p><strong>Before:</strong></p>
  <div class="image-row">
    <img src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/7e3a5d65-9114-4bce-9139-a88cff7c261f" />
  </div>

  <p><strong>After:</strong></p>
  <div class="image-row">
    <img src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/0a105f80-b6ae-400d-a787-fb8706d5f519" />
  </div>
</details>

---

opw-6345446

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

Currently, sending a simplified invoice (`TD07`) to the Italian Tax
Agency fails when an invoice line contains multiple taxes.

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install the `l10n_it_edi_withholding` module and switch to an IT Company.
- Create a new customer and set only the country to Italy and the Tax ID.
- Create a new invoice for that customer.
- Add a line with `22%` and `4% INPS` taxes.
- Go to the `Electronic Invoicing` tab, set the `Document Type` to
 `TD07 - Simplified invoice`, and confirm the invoice.
- Try to `Send To Tax Agency`.

**Error:**
`Node: <Natura t-if="line.tax_ids.l10n_it_exempt_reason" t-out="line.tax_ids.l10n_it_exempt_reason"/>`
`ValueError: Expected singleton: account.tax(102, 3)`

**Root Cause:**
At [1], the code accesses `line.tax_ids.l10n_it_exempt_reason`, but when an
invoice contains multiple taxes, causing an error.

**Fix:**
This commit prevents the error and ensures the user can send a simplified 
invoice by applying a fix similar to [2].

[1]:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/230483ffd7d8674cd6bf98a4ffb6591f755422e0/addons/l10n_it_edi/data/invoice_it_simplified_template.xml#L14

[2]:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/230483ffd7d8674cd6bf98a4ffb6591f755422e0/addons/l10n_it_edi/data/invoice_it_template.xml#L28-L181

Ticket [link](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project.task/6354138)
Ticket [link](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project.task/6379377)
opw-6354138
opw-6379377

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#273823

## Description

When validating an invoiced order in PoS Restaurant, an intermittent `undefined: Backend Invoice` error can occur if the user validates the order before the draft synchronization has completed.

This issue is difficult to reproduce consistently because it depends on network latency and the timing of user interactions.

### Steps to Reproduce

1. Open a PoS Restaurant session.
2. Add products to an order.
3. Click **Order** to start synchronizing the draft order.
4. Immediately click **Payment**.
5. Enable **Invoice** (select a customer if needed).
6. Click **Validate** before the draft synchronization finishes.
7. Under slow or unstable network conditions, the payment validation may fail with:

```
undefined: Backend Invoice
```

## Root Cause

During payment validation, `_finalizeValidation()` calls `push_single_order()` to synchronize the current order before creating the invoice.

In PoS Restaurant, `sendDraftToServer()` synchronizes draft orders asynchronously without acquiring `pushOrderMutex`, while `push_single_order()` performs synchronization while holding the mutex. Although both methods share the `syncingOrders` set, they are not synchronized through the same locking mechanism, allowing them to race.

The race happens as follows:

1. `sendDraftToServer()` starts synchronizing the draft order and adds its ID to `syncingOrders`.
2. Before it finishes, the user clicks **Validate**.
3. `_finalizeValidation()` calls `push_single_order()`, which invokes `_save_to_server()`.
4. Since the order is already in `syncingOrders`, `_save_to_server()` skips it and returns an empty array (`[]`).
5. The existing code only checks `!syncOrderResult`. Since an empty array is truthy in JavaScript, execution continues.
6. `_finalizeValidation()` then accesses `syncOrderResult[0]?.account_move`, where `syncOrderResult[0]` is `undefined`, resulting in the `undefined: Backend Invoice` error.

## Fix

Check that the synchronization result is both defined **and non-empty** before accessing its first element.

### Before

```javascript
if (!syncOrderResult) {
    return;
}
```

### After

```javascript
if (!syncOrderResult || !syncOrderResult.length) {
    return;
}
```

If `push_single_order()` returns an empty array, `_finalizeValidation()` exits early instead of attempting to access `syncOrderResult[0]`, preventing the exception.

This patch does **not** remove the underlying race condition; it simply handles the empty synchronization result safely.

## Notes

* This issue only affects **17.0**, where synchronization relies on `createFromUi()`.
* In **18.0**, the synchronization flow was redesigned around `syncFromUi()` and local model updates, so this specific race condition no longer occurs.

## Reproduction Videos

The issue is timing-dependent and requires slow network conditions together with rapid user interactions. After multiple attempts, it was successfully reproduced several times on Runbot.

1. [Reproduction Attempt 1](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-KmaTiCErwv_OsWxYdmCvRUSI9oY3FOF/view?usp=sharing)
2. [Reproduction Attempt 2](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MSG57nhZXfrAv1wuEkRbsmLstW5Hk9jg/view?usp=sharing)
3. [Reproduction Attempt 3](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fXdyfNKUgJLTrrDZTi_FXuCmupBL3x-f/view?usp=sharing)

opw-6367134