To reproduce the issue:

1) Create a company in Belgium
2) Instantiate its returns and review, submit and pay one of the VAT returns 3) Change the states_worklfow of the VAT return so that it only accepts "review" and "submit" stages, not "paid" anymore 4) Go to the list of returns, remove the TODO filter => traceback

The problem is here that the existing returns don't recompute their state when the workflow of the type is modified. In some cases, this is fine, but it others, it's annoying. In our example, the terminal state changed, so all the returns in that terminal stage should change their state to the new terminal one. "paid" is not an accepted value anymore, it should become "submitted".

Moreover, when the workflow is changed, the selection field actually containing the state must also change. As it is, it seems to work because "state" of account.return is stored, but the value it's based on (the workflow field) won't be consistent with it. It's not annoying now, but those inconsistencies could become a big source of trouble in the future (we know that from experience ... I'm looking at you, version 8 ! è-é).

This issue typically happens at upgrade. We had cases in FR and AE already. We solve that by a generic override of the write to sort things out when such change needs to happen. An upgrade PR will also be done to adapt the script so that we eventually solve the inconsistencies on dbs that have already migrated to 19.0.

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124934
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124144

### 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#121845
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#121135

Currently, an error occurs when user tries to reconcile when there are no bank statements to reconcile.

Steps to replicate:
- Install `accountant` with demo.
- Open Accounting and Click `To Reconcile` on the Bank Journal.
- Go to the list view > Select all > From the Cog menu > Reset to draft.
- Again select all and delete all the statement lines.
- From Cog menu click on `Run Auto Reconciliation` > Run.

Error:
```
SyntaxError: syntax error at or near ')'
LINE 44:            WHERE st_line.id IN ()
```

Cause:
- Error occurs because the [search] returns no results and the method `_try_auto_reconcile_statement_lines()` is called on an empty recordset.

- Later in the flow the function `_partner_mapping()` [1] is call which makes the `self.ids` as empty tuple [2] this causes the query to have a syntaxerror.

Solution:
- When there are no statement lines to reconcile we show a warning notification.

[search]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/ec408cb9a569f321afc99f4065a7a0f545d4faf4/account_accountant/wizard/bank_rec_auto_reconcile_wizard.py#L21-L27

[1]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/ec408cb9a569f321afc99f4065a7a0f545d4faf4/account_accountant/models/account_bank_statement.py#L427

[2]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/1516209ee077cda03155686d1377eb70080538f1/account_accountant/models/account_bank_statement.py#L620

sentry-7615011817

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

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

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

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

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

sentry-7488793071

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#125323
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#121189

## Steps to reproduce:

1. Install `l10n_br`, `l10n_br_avatax`, and `l10n_br_edi_fiscal_reform`.
2. Ensure that Demo mode is activated if not on Runbot.
3. Navigate to Contacts, then click into "BR Company Customer Estimated Profit".
4. Duplicate this contact, then set the following fields:
   1. Tax Regime set to individual
   2. ICMS Taxpayer Type set to Non-Taxpayer
5. Swtich to the BR Company and go to Accounting / Configuration / Settings.
6. Set up a Sandbox Avalara account and enable logging payload responses.
7. Navigate to Accounting > Customers > Invoices.
8. Create an invoice with:
   1. Customer set to the copy created earlier.
   2. Operation Type set to Sale of Goods
   3. Document Type set to 55
   4. Payment Method Brazil set to Money
   5. Presence set to Present
   6. One sales order line with:
      1. Regular Consumable Product
      2. quantity set to 1
      3. price set to 100.0
9. Confirm the invoice.
10. Navigate back to Accounting > Configuration > Settings to view the response from Avalara. The customer will have the CFOP 6102 instead of CFOP 6108.

Explanation:

PR #97845 introduced `_l10n_br_deep_clean_dict()` to remove falsy values and empty dictionaries from the payload we send to Avalara. This fix was applied as broadly as possible to prevent excessive if statements.

However, if the falsy values in taxSettings of the customer are not communicated, Avalara will assign the customer to an incorrect CFOP.

opw-6085964

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124730
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120783

## 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#124910
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120130

Steps to reproduce:
- Install Argentina(l10n_ar) localization > Change Company
- Accounting > Customers > Invoices > Select an invoice > Click "Pay"
- In "Journal" select "Third Party Checks" > In "Payment Method" select "New Third Party Checks" > Fill the rest of the check info (Number, Bank Account, Issuer Vat, Payment Date and Amount) > Click on "Create Payment"
- Repeat the payment process for another invoice with same info > Validation Error

A change in [PR] caused the check uniqueness constraint apply to all checks. Because of this, using the same check number with the "New Third Party Checks" payment method now raises a validation error.

This is not the intended behavior. The uniqueness constraint should only apply to "Own Checks" when using a "Bank" journal for Vendor Bills. It should not apply to "Third Party Checks" with the "New Third Party Checks" payment method in Customer Invoice.

Avoid linking `l10n_latam_check_ids` on liquidity lines for outbound "Own Checks" payments so that the uniqueness constraint is enforced only for the "Vendor Bills".

[PR]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/243509/changes

opw-6334965

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275261

For a logged-in user, some form fields are automatically prefilled from
their profile, such as a "Phone" field with their phone number.

**Issue:**
The prefill configuration is always preserved when we change options of
a field. While this is correct when updating few options, but it also
happens after the field is repurposed, causing it to inherit a prefill
value intended for a different field.

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Edit the /contactus page's form.
- Change the "Name" field's type to a "URL" or "CC" field.
- Save the changes.
- The "URL/CC" field is prefilled with the user's name.

A field is considered repurposed when:
- its type is changed (e.g. from "Phone" to "URL");
- a custom field is converted into an existing field.

**Fix:**
This commit preserves the prefill only when the field keeps the same
name and type. Otherwise, it clears the stale prefill so repurposed
fields no longer inherit incorrect values.

task-[5976747](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project/974/tasks/5976747)

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#278426
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275812

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#273595

### 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` modeule 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

Enterprise: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/121135

opw-6275658

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#272256
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#271017

**Problem:**
On a job position whose company is left empty ("Visible to all"), the Recruiter dropdown does not propose any user anymore: only the "Create" option is offered. The same happens on applicants without a company. Only saas-19.2 is affected: 19.0/19.1 still use the res.users-based recruiter field, and on saas-19.3 the company became mandatory on job positions.

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Install Recruitment
2. Open a job position whose Company is "Visible to all" (e.g. any demo job position)
3. Edit the Recruiter field

**Current behavior:**
The dropdown shows no user, only the "Create" option.

**Expected behavior:**
The dropdown lists the recruiters of all companies, as it does (per company) when a company is set.

**Cause of the issue:**
Commit 05e22346050d replaced the res.users-based `user_id` recruiter field with the hr.employee-based `recruiter_id`, declared with `check_company=True`. For check_company fields, `_description_domain()` sends the client `company_id and [('company_id', 'in', [company_id, False])] or [('company_id', '=', False)]`. When the record has no company, the domain falls back to `[('company_id', '=', False)]`, and since `hr.employee.company_id` is required, no employee can ever match. This reintroduces the issue previously fixed by 5dfe494e62af for the old user_id field: the `allowed_user_ids` mechanism introduced there was dropped by the field replacement.

**Fix:**
`check_company=True` brings nothing to these models server-side (neither `hr.job` nor `hr.applicant` has `_check_company_auto`): its only effect is that client-side domain. Folding the company condition directly into the recruiter domain with `('company_id', '=?', company_id)` keeps the per-company filtering when a company is set and degrades to no filtering when it is not, mirroring what is already done for `interviewer_ids` on the job position. The domains become strings so the client keeps evaluating `company_id` per record.

opw-6290312

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276079
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#270529

# How to reproduce
- In Settings, enable Variants & Product Reference Price
- Create a published Product with a Sales Price
- Add 2 variants to the Product
- In the product's variant list, select the first one & set Base Unit Count to 0,
- Set the second variant's Base Unit Count to a value > 0
- Go to the Product's page
- Select the second variant

# The issue
The Reference Price is not displayed for the second variant, even though it should since it has a Base Unit Count > 0. Refreshing the page while being on the second variant will prevent the bug from happening.

# Cause
When loading the product's info, we call `_onChangeCombination`. This method is responsible for, among other things, updating the reference price and hiding it if Base Unit Count  = 0 :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/68f258e99f42693131a5309b3606c3b95f93d824/addons/website_sale/static/src/js/variant_mixin.js#L277-L289

To do that, it will search for an html element with the `.o_base_unit_price` css class. If it does not find it, the reference price will not be updated. The issue is that this element is behind a condition in the template :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/68f258e99f42693131a5309b3606c3b95f93d824/addons/website_sale/views/templates.xml#L2083

When the first time the template is loaded, if
`combination_info.get('base_unit_price')` is False, then the Reference Price will never be added to the view and will never be found by `_onChangeCombination`.

Since our first variant has Base Unit Count = 0, then `base_unit_price` will equal 0, so `combination_info.get('base_unit_price')` will be evaluated to false.

opw-6367289

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276713
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#274722

This PR fixes the issue of the Cancel button floating on the last row when the buttons wrap and other overflowing issues. Before this PR, we were targetting the screen's orientation and max-height, which worked in general but still let a few layout issues through. 
On tablets the buttons are large and squarish for better touch usability (which has the double function of leaving plenty of space for translations), this makes fitting them within the modal container without overflowing a bit more complex.

Instead, we target ranges of the aspect-ratio of the screen and adjust the buttons squarish aspect-ratio and the number of grid columns accordingly. By controlling the grid's columns we're able to tell the last button (the Cancel button) to stretch to full width when needed as well as having a more balanced layout in both landscape and portrait views.

task-6235164


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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265711

### Steps to reproduce:

- Open the Todo app
- In the editor, insert the following content: `<p>a</p><div class="oe_unbreakable"><br></div><p>b</p>`
- Double-click the empty unbreakable node
- Open the color picker and hover over a color
- Toolbar and color picker get closed

### Root cause:

- Hovering a color in an empty unbreakable node replaces the `<br>` with a `<font data-oe-zws-empty-inline>` containing a ZWS (`\u200b`). This triggers a selectionchange where `isToolbarVisible()` finds no `<br>` and no visible text, returns false, and closes the toolbar — which reverts the preview, reopens the toolbar, and causes a flicker loop.

### Solution:

- Instead of calling `fillEmpty()` (which inserts a ZWS placeholder) on empty blocks containing `<br>` preserve the `<br>` element by appending it directly inside the `<font>` tag which keeps toolbar open.

task-6312933

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276776
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#271507

### Steps to reproduce:

- In the settings enable Multi-Steps route
- Unarchive the MTO route and set its production rule in MTSO
- Create 3 products: P1, P2 and COMP all using the MTO route
- Create 2 BOM's, one for P1 and one for P2: 1 X COMP
- Put 2 units of COMP in stock and add an empty bom (to trigger a child MO creation in case the MTSO route is triggered)
- Create and confirm a sale order for: 1 x P1 and 1 X P2
#### > An MO was generated for both product but P2 also generated a child MO for 1 unit of COMP instead of using the available unit

Cause of the issue:

The issue happens in the `_prepare_procurement_qty` which incorrectly assess that 1 unit of COMP will be required. The issue has been introduced by commit https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/e30fb722c00805e7226d2ee9e3e587b3c2204840 which introduced a dictionary to keep track of units of  products that will be used by the confirmation process of other concurrent mtso moves: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/71f0715bd5e29e976a1e8bfa7c4fa6e04735ebd7/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1683-L1689 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/71f0715bd5e29e976a1e8bfa7c4fa6e04735ebd7/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1712-L1715 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/71f0715bd5e29e976a1e8bfa7c4fa6e04735ebd7/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1810-L1814 
While by design this propagates the information used by other mtso moves in a common `_action_confirm` stack, the issue that we encounter is that this quantity is only relevant to be substracted to the free_qty when the unit is not yet reserved and hence already accounted negatively in `free_qty`. However, in the present case, confirming the receipt of P1 and P2 will confirm both moves simultaneously, triggering a common `_run_manufacture` to generate both an MO for P1 and for P2. At this point the dictionary `consumed_from_stock_dict` is shared in both MO's confirmation but since the MO's are confirmed sequentially rather than in batch:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/71f0715bd5e29e976a1e8bfa7c4fa6e04735ebd7/addons/mrp/models/stock_rule.py#L122-L125
The confirmation of the MO of P1 will update the `consumed_from_stock_dict` for 1 unit of COMP and will also reserve 1 unit of COMP before the MO of P2 is confirmed (and calls the `_prepare_procurement_qty`) to determine how many units of COMP are till available. This leads to the incorrect conclusion that 1 - 1 = 0 units are still available to fulfill the demand of P2.

opw-6370298

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275539

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

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

Current behavior before PR:

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

Steps to reporduce:

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

Desired behavior after PR is merged:

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


opw-6266745


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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#273797
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#271766

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#278307
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#273823

## [FIX] account_edi_ubl_cii: ensure base_vat

VAT validation is actually in base_vat which account does not depend on...
This test fails when it's not installed, it's just hiding a design problem
but it cannot be fixed in stable.

runbot-941422

## [FIX] account_edi_ubl_cii,account_peppol: move up default EAS validation
    
**Problem:**
When standard UBL BIS3/CII documents are generated, EAS schemes (such as the Australian
ABN) need to be formatted/space-stripped.
Previously, the normalization and validation of EAS routing identifiers via
as defined in the account_peppol module.
If the test database did not auto-install account_peppol (for example, in
non-European localization setups), the spaces in the ABN (e.g. 53 930 548 027)
were not stripped.

**Solution:**
Moved the account_peppol validation override up to account_edi_ubl_cii.

This guarantees that EAS values are properly cleaned and formatted during XML export
across all module installation combinations.

runbot-941422

### 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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#278252
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277934

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

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

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

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

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

opw-6300582

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#274492
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#270409