This PR alters the preview record selector pager present in
the mass_mailing mobile preview view to allow users to manually
select a recipient, instead of rotating through the available
recipients.

This PR also introduces an alternate-color version of the
HTML editor phone_svg image, to be used in the dark theme preview.

--

This PR introduces a series of small fixes to the mailing form view,
UX and associated views:

- When clicking its Discard button, the fullscreen mailing editor only
  discards changes made to the mailing
- In the Mailing preview dialog, the "fake" header no longer displays
  a grab cursor (as it cannot be grabbed)
- When sending a test, a toaster is no longer displayed, as information
  pertaining to its success or failure is already logged in the chatter
- The Dynamic list recipient count is no longer displayed for sent
  mailings, as it may have become outdated since it was sent.

This commit also removes the outdated demo in mass_mailing_sale. It
was no longer compatible with the editor, and its previous purpose
in demonstrating link tracking is now handled by other demo mailings.

task-6321624

### 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

### 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

**Steps to reproduce:**
Both problem are reproducible on runbot aswell 
but for more clarity (and for empty accounting), 
those steps are on a fresh db with no demo data

Problem 1 : 
- create a new db with stock_account, purchase 
and accountant
- In the companies view, select your company
- in the branch tab, create a branch for your company
- for both the branch and the company, in the settings 
set the valuation as periodic daily

With only the branch company selected:
- create a warehouse for your branch
- create a storable prod with a cost of 10
- validate a receipt for 1 unit of the prod
- open inventory valuation view and check 
that there is variation lines for 10
- open 'scheduled actions' view
- select 'inventory valuation closing' 
- click on 'run manually'

With the main company selected: 
- Open journal items
- click on the journal entry of  any of the move line 
with label 'closing stock variation global for 
company [branch]'
- select the 'other info' tab


Problem 2: 
- create a new db with stock_account, purchase 
and accountant
- create a company 2 
- for both companies, in the settings 
set the valuation as periodic daily

With company 2 selected
- create a warehouse for company 2
- in the settings for fiscal localization set the 
'generic chart of account'
- create a storable product with a cost of 10
- validate a receipt for 1 quantity of the product
- open inventory valuation view and check 
that there is variation lines for 10
- open 'scheduled actions' view
- select 'inventory valuation closing' 
- click on 'run manually'


**Current behavior:**
Problem 1: 
the company of the account move 
is the main company

Problem 2: 
There is a traceback including 
'UserError: Everything is correctly closed'

**Expected behavior:**
Problem 1: 
It should be the branch company

Problem 2: 
Everything is closed in company 1, but 
it shouldn't prevent to generate the entries
for company 2

**Cause of the issue:**
Problem 1: 
Inside _cron_post_stock_valuation
we call action_close_stock_valuation for each company
(if periodic daily or periodic monthly and we're the last 
day of the month)
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b8e5291d103d9f43bd8db6d2dfe708076a57ea37/addons/stock_account/models/res_company.py#L143-L144

Inside action_close_stock_valuation when creating 
the account move we add a context to be sure that 
the move is created for the main company selected 
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b8e5291d103d9f43bd8db6d2dfe708076a57ea37/addons/stock_account/models/res_company.py#L72
The fix comes from this PR 
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/263828
and was improved starting from 19.1 
to simply add a the company_id on the moves_vals.

But the problem is that this fix failed to consider 
the case where we come from cron because 
in this case self.env.company is the main company 
of the user, which is a problem because  as we iterate 
through the companies we want each account 
move to be created for its own company.
This other PR https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/269152 corrects
this by using self.id instead of self.company.id
but only starting from 19.1.

The fix is essentially a back port of those 2 PR.

Problem 2: 
When you call action_close_stock_valuation from 
_cron_post_stock_valuation for the company 
that has no inventory valuation and thus no 
account move to create we will raise the user
error 
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b8e5291d103d9f43bd8db6d2dfe708076a57ea37/addons/stock_account/models/res_company.py#L58-L60
This makes sense if the method was called 
from the inventory valuation view. 
But in our case it's called from cron so we might 
also call it on other companies and therefore we 
don't want to raise an exception if there is no 
account move to create on one of the companies.

opw-6144294

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277021
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275294

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

When searching on the Website site, using the main search on the navbar, it opens a list view with the results (`website.list_hybrid`) which raises the warning on the logs (2 times):
"Unknown directives or unused attributes: {'t-key'} in website.list_hybrid"

![Task 79454 - Issue 434 - Image of Warnings](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/f5a3100b-c617-4c38-a8b5-f42427a4317c)

This happens after the attribute `t-key` was added to the template [\[1\]] because the template is only used in QWeb. The validation for them doesn't include the `t-key` [\[2\]] as one of the "iter_directives" nor has a `_compile_directive_*` method to check and remove it from the validation as it's done with the `t-as` and `t-foreach`.

This also causes the raise of the warnings on tours that use the tour method `searchProduct` (of the module `website_sale`) because it uses the first input with the name of search and happens to be the search on the navbar.

![Task 79454 - Issue 434 - Search Input](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/923f5d63-5cfb-4c0b-a563-0eabc04882bb)

[\[1\]]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/7b1d82aa
[\[2\]]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f52cfb09/odoo/addons/base/models/ir_qweb.py#L1400

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#179017

**Problem:**
For an hour-based time off allocation, changing the employee's working schedule leaves the allocation duration (in days) stale, so the balance shown on the Time Off dashboard becomes wrong.

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Give an employee a working schedule of 8 hours/day.
2. Create an hour-based allocation (time off type with Request Unit = Hours) granting e.g. 8 hours (1 day).
3. Change the employee's working schedule to one with a different Hours per Day (e.g. 4 hours/day).
4. Check the allocation / the Time Off dashboard balance.

**Current behavior:**
number_of_days stays at its old value (1), so the balance is recomputed as 1 day x 4 hours = 4 hours instead of the 8 hours actually accrued.

**Expected behavior:**
The accrued hours stay constant; the duration in days follows the new schedule (8 hours / 4 hours-per-day = 2 days).

**Cause of the issue:**
`number_of_days` and `number_of_hours_display` compute from each other (`number_of_days = number_of_hours_display / hours_per_day` and `number_of_hours_display = number_of_days * hours_per_day`), forming a dependency cycle, and neither depends on the employee's working schedule. So a schedule change never recomputes either field. Adding the schedule to `_compute_number_of_days`' depends does not help: because of the cycle it recomputes `number_of_hours_display` from the stale `number_of_days` first, which silently destroys the accrued hours.

**Fix:**
When the employee's working schedule changes, the accrued hours are the quantity that must be preserved, so the duration is recomputed explicitly from the still-stored `number_of_hours_display` (setting `number_of_days` first, exactly as a manual `_compute_number_of_days()` does). Driving the order by hand is necessary because the cyclic compute graph cannot guarantee `number_of_days` is computed before `number_of_hours_display`.

opw-6276242

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#270129

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

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

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

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

opw-6215768

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#274102
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#267726

## Steps to Reproduce: _(cryptography version > 43.0.0)_
1. Install the `l10n_sa_edi` module.
2. Switch to SA Company.
3. Set the company name to an Arabic string between 32 and 64 characters. 
    (e.g; `مجموعة النخبة العالمية للاستشارات الفنية`)
5. Accounting > Configuration > Journals.
6. Open a Sales type journal.
7. Click "Re-onboard" in the ZATCA tab.
8. Enter an OTP and click "Request".

## Error:
`ValueError: Attribute's length must be >= 1 and <= 64, but it was 98`

## Cause:
The CSR validation checks the length of characters, if combined common_name (or other fields) are less than 64 characters, it passes the condition. - [1] But the cryptography library validates UTF-8 byte length for string values. Arabic characters take 2 bytes in UTF-8, causing the byte length to exceed the 64-byte limit enforced by the cryptography.

**Note:**
Starting with cryptography version 43.0.0, the library enforces the UTF-8 byte length limit for CSR string values during certificate creation. (Ref: https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/pull/11201)


## Fix:
Validate the UTF-8 encoded byte length instead of the character length.

[1] - https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/a66fedcaf555660e484a2becc49a9b7e602f5924/addons/l10n_sa_edi/models/certificate.py#L92

sentry-7608376856

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277822
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276861

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#277843
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275154

Before this commit, decreasing the quantity of a move whose move lines are expressed in another unit of measure removed the wrong quantity from the lines, because the two conversions between the move unit and the line unit converted a value to its own unit, hence did nothing.

Steps to reproduce:
- create a product in Units with available stock
- create a delivery for 2 Dozen of it and mark it as todo
- in the detailed operations, change the unit of the move line to Units (24)
- lower the move quantity from 2 to 1 Dozen

The move line ends up with 23 Units instead of 12: the decrease of 1 Dozen is applied as 1 Unit on the line and considered fully processed. The remaining 11 units stay reserved and counted on the transfer.

Convert the remaining decrease from the move unit to the line unit when taking it from a line, and the taken quantity back to the move unit when updating the remaining decrease.

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#278148
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276774

When searching on the Website site, using the main search on the navbar, it opens a list view with the results (`website.list_hybrid`) which raises the warning on the logs (2 times):
"Unknown directives or unused attributes: {'t-key'} in website.list_hybrid"

![Task 79454 - Issue 434 - Image of Warnings](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/f5a3100b-c617-4c38-a8b5-f42427a4317c)

This happens after the attribute `t-key` was added to the template [\[1\]] because the template is only used in QWeb. The validation for them doesn't include the `t-key` [\[2\]] as one of the "iter_directives" nor has a `_compile_directive_*` method to check and remove it from the validation as it's done with the `t-as` and `t-foreach`.

This also causes the raise of the warnings on tours that use the tour method `searchProduct` (of the module `website_sale`) because it uses the first input with the name of search and happens to be the search on the navbar.

![Task 79454 - Issue 434 - Search Input](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/923f5d63-5cfb-4c0b-a563-0eabc04882bb)

[\[1\]]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/7b1d82aa
[\[2\]]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f52cfb09/odoo/addons/base/models/ir_qweb.py#L1400

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#179017

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:
A cash rounding line resolves its company-dependent profit/loss account against the active company instead of the invoice's own company, which breaks multi-company invoicing whenever the invoice's company differs from the active one.

Current behavior before PR:
- Enable Multi-Companies in the settings.
- Create a second company (Company B).
- Open Accounting > Configuration > Cash Roundings.
- Create a cash rounding with strategy "Add a rounding line" and precision 1.00.
- Make Company A the active company in the company switcher.
- Set the cash rounding's profit and loss accounts to Company A accounts.
- Switch the active company to Company B.
- Set the cash rounding's profit and loss accounts to Company B accounts.
- Make Company A the active company again, keeping both companies active.
- Create a customer invoice for Company B.
- Add one invoice line whose total is not a multiple of the rounding precision.
- Set the invoice's cash rounding to the one above.
> Adding the rounding line raises a cross-company UserError: the company-dependent account is resolved against Company A while the invoice belongs to Company B.

Desired behavior after PR is merged:
The rounding line resolves the company-dependent profit/loss account against the invoice's own company, so the rounding line always uses that company's account and no cross-company error is raised. Covered by the added test TestAccountMoveCashRoundingMultiCompany.




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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#273410

## Steps to Reproduce: _(cryptography version > 43.0.0)_
1. Install the `l10n_sa_edi` module.
2. Switch to SA Company.
3. Set the company name to an Arabic string between 32 and 64 characters. 
    (e.g; `مجموعة النخبة العالمية للاستشارات الفنية`)
5. Accounting > Configuration > Journals.
6. Open a Sales type journal.
7. Click "Re-onboard" in the ZATCA tab.
8. Enter an OTP and click "Request".

## Error:
`ValueError: Attribute's length must be >= 1 and <= 64, but it was 98`

## Cause:
The CSR validation checks the length of characters, if combined common_name (or other fields) are less than 64 characters, it passes the condition. - [1] But the cryptography library validates UTF-8 byte length for string values. Arabic characters take 2 bytes in UTF-8, causing the byte length to exceed the 64-byte limit enforced by the cryptography.

**Note:**
Starting with cryptography version 43.0.0, the library enforces the UTF-8 byte length limit for CSR string values during certificate creation. (Ref: https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/pull/11201)


## Fix:
Validate the UTF-8 encoded byte length instead of the character length.

[1] - https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/a66fedcaf555660e484a2becc49a9b7e602f5924/addons/l10n_sa_edi/models/certificate.py#L92

sentry-7608376856

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277822
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276861

**Problem:**
For an hour-based time off allocation, changing the employee's working schedule leaves the allocation duration (in days) stale, so the balance shown on the Time Off dashboard becomes wrong.

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Give an employee a working schedule of 8 hours/day.
2. Create an hour-based allocation (time off type with Request Unit = Hours) granting e.g. 8 hours (1 day).
3. Change the employee's working schedule to one with a different Hours per Day (e.g. 4 hours/day).
4. Check the allocation / the Time Off dashboard balance.

**Current behavior:**
number_of_days stays at its old value (1), so the balance is recomputed as 1 day x 4 hours = 4 hours instead of the 8 hours actually accrued.

**Expected behavior:**
The accrued hours stay constant; the duration in days follows the new schedule (8 hours / 4 hours-per-day = 2 days).

**Cause of the issue:**
`number_of_days` and `number_of_hours_display` compute from each other (`number_of_days = number_of_hours_display / hours_per_day` and `number_of_hours_display = number_of_days * hours_per_day`), forming a dependency cycle, and neither depends on the employee's working schedule. So a schedule change never recomputes either field. Adding the schedule to `_compute_number_of_days`' depends does not help: because of the cycle it recomputes `number_of_hours_display` from the stale `number_of_days` first, which silently destroys the accrued hours.

**Fix:**
When the employee's working schedule changes, the accrued hours are the quantity that must be preserved, so the duration is recomputed explicitly from the still-stored `number_of_hours_display` (setting `number_of_days` first, exactly as a manual `_compute_number_of_days()` does). Driving the order by hand is necessary because the cyclic compute graph cannot guarantee `number_of_days` is computed before `number_of_hours_display`.

opw-6276242

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#270129

[FIX] html_builder: fix job location editing on website
Scenario:
1) Head over to website
2) Go to any specific job page
3) Open editor
4) Try changing job location
5) Hit save

Result: The changes aren't saved or propagated into the backend.

Expectation: Users should be able to edit job locations via the
editor on website and have those changes reflect on the site
and job record.

Cause:
How elements were marked as savable was changed [in this IMP][1] to
rely on `o_savable` rather than the savable selectors resource. As a
result, elements which had the `o_not_editable` class, such as job
location, did not have `o_savable` added to them. These elements were
excluded from the builder's dirty-tracking for save. Therefore, editing
the location didn't mark the element as changed and saving to drop the
update.

Fix:
Remove `o_not_editable` from the location element on plugin setup so
the field is now editable and savable through the builder option.

This surfaced a second issue: when the location was set to "Remote",
the element's content could be directly editable inline. Saving it
that way disconnected the content from the job location field. This
was fixed by adjusting the selector that determines when a many2one's
content is editable inline. The result is the "Remote" case is handled
consistently as changing to any other location.

[1]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/f3c119dd034b4c3df9f392b0cdc66a1141662c25

Task-6311200

*: stock_landed_costs, purchase_{stock,mrp}, stock_dropshipping, sale_mrp, pos_mrp, repair, mrp_landed_costs, mrp_subcontracting_{dropshipping,landed_costs}, point_of_sale, {project_,}stock_account

Adapts the test skipped to fast merge the valuation refactoring made in https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/08b62a4bbcc6f9a391b2cc00a621ef4c76100229.

<img width="482" height="297" alt="table" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/ba57f350-2a9e-4a51-990d-fabe14f5a56a" />

 (*) Includes the one sale_project_stock_account test re-enabled through the TestAnalytics subclass.

It is organised as one commit per module. Two of the re-enabled tests surfaced genuine bugs in the new valuation model; those commits also carry the related fixes: purchase_mrp, project_stock_account Every other commit changes tests-only.

Only one skipped test remains: point_of_sale TestUi.test_05_ticket_screen, a browser tour with no stock-valuation content that was swept into the mass skip by mistake and fails for an unrelated reason (it is left to a separate point-of-sale tour investigation).

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275246

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

**Issue**
A credit note created before returning any stock may compute an incorrect COGS value.

**Steps to reproduce**
- Create a product valued with AVCO and a standard price of 10
- Create and confirm a SO for 2 units
- Create and post the invoice
- Change the product's standard price to 20.
- Create a credit note without returning the delivered stock
-> The cogs value on the credit note is 40 instead of 20

**Cause**
While posting the credit note:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/844853be7956416c0cdcdeeb0d5f22422b528e5c/addons/sale/models/account_move.py#L62
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/844853be7956416c0cdcdeeb0d5f22422b528e5c/addons/account/models/account_move.py#L5580
COGS lines are created:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/844853be7956416c0cdcdeeb0d5f22422b528e5c/addons/stock_account/models/account_move.py#L46
which needs to compute the unit_price:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f715337f70bf7eaa8f084da6cd42d674d7a4bfe0/addons/stock_account/models/account_move.py#L132
which is initially computed from the original invoice line:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/844853be7956416c0cdcdeeb0d5f22422b528e5c/addons/stock_account/models/account_move.py#L308-L317
However, the `sale_stock` override recomputes that value whenever the invoice line is linked to a sales order:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/844853be7956416c0cdcdeeb0d5f22422b528e5c/addons/sale_stock/models/account_move.py#L173
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/844853be7956416c0cdcdeeb0d5f22422b528e5c/addons/sale_stock/models/account_move.py#L212-L213
This computation will give the standard price since:
- `is_returned` is True but no return move, which means there won't be any candidate:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/844853be7956416c0cdcdeeb0d5f22422b528e5c/addons/stock_account/models/product.py#L921-L923
- As a result, `qty_valued` is zero:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/844853be7956416c0cdcdeeb0d5f22422b528e5c/addons/stock_account/models/product.py#L933-L936
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/844853be7956416c0cdcdeeb0d5f22422b528e5c/addons/stock_account/models/stock_valuation_layer.py#L172-L173
- The computation therefore falls back to the current standard price:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/844853be7956416c0cdcdeeb0d5f22422b528e5c/addons/stock_account/models/product.py#L938-L946

opw-6369550

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276926

When searching on the Website site, using the main search on the navbar, it opens a list view with the results (`website.list_hybrid`) which raises the warning on the logs (2 times):
"Unknown directives or unused attributes: {'t-key'} in website.list_hybrid"

![Task 79454 - Issue 434 - Image of Warnings](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/f5a3100b-c617-4c38-a8b5-f42427a4317c)

This happens after the attribute `t-key` was added to the template [\[1\]] because the template is only used in QWeb. The validation for them doesn't include the `t-key` [\[2\]] as one of the "iter_directives" nor has a `_compile_directive_*` method to check and remove it from the validation as it's done with the `t-as` and `t-foreach`.

This also causes the raise of the warnings on tours that use the tour method `searchProduct` (of the module `website_sale`) because it uses the first input with the name of search and happens to be the search on the navbar.

![Task 79454 - Issue 434 - Search Input](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/923f5d63-5cfb-4c0b-a563-0eabc04882bb)

[\[1\]]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/7b1d82aa
[\[2\]]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f52cfb09/odoo/addons/base/models/ir_qweb.py#L1400

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#179017

Before this commit, when adding a line without a product to an invoice or credit note, `_get_most_frequent_account_for_partner` picked the partner's most-used account, filtered to an income or expense account depending on `get_inbound_types` and `get_outbound_types`.

Those helpers classify move types by cash-flow direction which is correct for choosing a receivable and payable account but wrong for choosing an income ro expense account: they group `in_refund`  with `out_invoice` as "inbound", and `out_refund` with `in_invoice` as "outbound".

As a result, a Vendor Credit Note line with no product would be filtered to income accounts instead of expense accounts, and a Customer Credit Note line to expense accounts instead of income accounts. This only surfaced for contacts who are both customer and vendor, since the query needs matching history to return a result; otherwise it silently falls back to the journal's default account, masking the bug for ordinary contacts.

This commit uses `get_sale_types` and `get_purchase_types` instead, which classify by document side, sale vs. purchase rather than cash-flow direction, matching the classification already used for product-based lines `is_sale_document` and `is_purchase_document`

opw-6373124



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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276846

### Issue before this commit:
When importing an electronic invoice from SDI that is failing with an exception, the resulting account.move record was saved in the "Miscellaneous Operations" journal instead of the correct one (Vendor Bills), even though the move_type itself was correct.

### Steps to reproduce the issue:
Pre steps: you need to have access to https://iap-services-test.odoo.com/odoo
1. Download Accounting and l10n_it
2. Go to Settings > Companies and set the VAT of IT company the same as the one in the xml
3. Go to Settings > Italian Electronic Invoicing and select Test
4. Go into the code and insert an Exception inside the function _l10n_it_edi_import_invoice after self.move_type = move_type (or create any type of exception from the user interface)
5. Go to IAP service into IT EDI app and see that your company is there as user
6. Click into the record > receive move button > upload your xml > create
7. Go to your DB > Scheduled Actions > filter with IT > IT EDI: Receive invoices from the SdI > Run Manually
8. Go to Journal entries, remove the filter and find your imported bill
9. You can see it was inserted into the Miscellaneous Operations Journal instead of a Vendor Bill Journal

### Cause of the issue:
The move is created inside a savepoint context manager, designed so that even if parsing fails, an empty move with the attachment still remains. The problem is that if the exception is raised, the savepoint rollback undoes everything that follows, but the journal was already determined before the correct move_type was known, leaving the move in the wrong default journal.

### Reason to introduce the fix:
The fix is needed to ensure that, regardless of where parsing fails, the move's journal is correctly set even if an exception occurs so that it is possible to find the move in the correct section even if not imported correctly.

opw-6397712

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#278472
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#278111

**Problem:**
When creating a new task, the Customer does not follow the project the user selects: once a first project has filled it, selecting another project keeps the previous project's customer.

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Create a new task and select a project that has a customer.
2. The Customer is set to that project's customer.
3. Select another project configured with a different customer.
4. Observe the Customer keeps the first project's customer.

**Current behavior:**
The Customer keeps the first selected project's customer.

**Expected behavior:**
The Customer follows the selected project and shows its customer.

**Cause of the issue:**
partner_id is filled by _compute_partner_id, which only assigns a partner while the field is empty. Once a project has filled it, selecting another project no longer refreshes the now non-empty Customer.

**Fix:**
Refresh the Customer from the project on project_id change, but only while the task is new (no _origin). An existing task's customer is left untouched, since it may already carry sale order lines, timesheets, materials or worksheets that must not be reset when the project changes.

opw-6315902

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276289
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276211

**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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275468

## Steps to Reproduce:
1. Install the Sales and Studio modules.
2. Create a new menu for "**Sales Order Line**".
3. Open the menu in list view and group by "**Order**".
4. Sort by "**Order Reference**".

## Issue:
Sale order lines appear to be sorted randomly when grouped by Order and sorted
by Order Reference.

## Cause:
When sorting on a many2one field, the `_order_field_to_sql()` method uses the comodel's default `_order` to generate the SQL query. - [1]
Since `order_id` is a many2one on `sale.order.line` model, sorting by the `order_id` (Order Reference) also applies this default ordering of `sale.order` model, which is `date_order desc, id desc`.

As a result, sale order lines are not ordered by SO name, but also by the corresponding sale order's order date. This ordering changes the order of the records, making the result appear random from the user's perspective, even though they explicitly sorted by Order Reference.

## Fix:
This commit removes the `date_order` from the default ordering of the sale order and keeps only ordering by id. This prevents the sale order's order date (date_order) from affecting the ordering of sale order lines.

This follows the same approach previously accepted for purchase orders.
Task: https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project/49/tasks/2367965
PR:  https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/60542

[1] - https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/16a1a545e2809a2172053f4db6193f425900e4ec/odoo/models.py#L5652-L5671

opw-6348322

Description of the issue this commit addresses:

When a member of the Invoicing group tries to create a payment trough the L10nPlAccountPaymentRegister wizard, upon clicking "Create Payment", an AccessError is thrown. Invoicing group members should be able to handle payments so this is an issue.

---

Steps to reproduce:

1. Make sure sale_management and l10n_pl_bank_verification are installed.
2. Create a new user with "Invoicing" Accounting group.
3. Create a new sales order with said user (any customer, any product)
4. Confirm the quotations and, from its form view, "Create Invoice".
5. Confirm the invoice and, from its form view, "Pay".
6. Upon clicking "Create Payment", an Access Error is thrown.

---

Desired behavior after this commit is merged:

This commit makes sure an Invoicing group member is able to create the payment withtout AccessErrors being thrown.

---

task-none
feedback from: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/267992

---

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

### Issue before this commit:
When importing an electronic invoice from SDI that is failing with an exception, the resulting account.move record was saved in the "Miscellaneous Operations" journal instead of the correct one (Vendor Bills), even though the move_type itself was correct.

### Steps to reproduce the issue:
Pre steps: you need to have access to https://iap-services-test.odoo.com/odoo
1. Download Accounting and l10n_it
2. Go to Settings > Companies and set the VAT of IT company the same as the one in the xml
3. Go to Settings > Italian Electronic Invoicing and select Test
4. Go into the code and insert an Exception inside the function _l10n_it_edi_import_invoice after self.move_type = move_type (or create any type of exception from the user interface)
5. Go to IAP service into IT EDI app and see that your company is there as user
6. Click into the record > receive move button > upload your xml > create
7. Go to your DB > Scheduled Actions > filter with IT > IT EDI: Receive invoices from the SdI > Run Manually
8. Go to Journal entries, remove the filter and find your imported bill
9. You can see it was inserted into the Miscellaneous Operations Journal instead of a Vendor Bill Journal

### Cause of the issue:
The move is created inside a savepoint context manager, designed so that even if parsing fails, an empty move with the attachment still remains. The problem is that if the exception is raised, the savepoint rollback undoes everything that follows, but the journal was already determined before the correct move_type was known, leaving the move in the wrong default journal.

### Reason to introduce the fix:
The fix is needed to ensure that, regardless of where parsing fails, the move's journal is correctly set even if an exception occurs so that it is possible to find the move in the correct section even if not imported correctly.

opw-6397712

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#278111

Windows nightly builds have been failing for several days with this obscure NSIS error message in Odoo 19.0:

    Internal compiler error #12345: error mmapping datablock to 30283637

Root cause: the accumulated size of `.po` files across all modules has grown past a threshold where the NSIS solid compressor tries to mmap a buffer larger than the ~2 GiB address space available to the 32-bit makensis running under Wine. Simply dropping the `/SOLID` option makes the build pass but nearly doubles the size of the final installer, which is not acceptable.

The chosen fix is to pre-bundle all `.po` files into a single solid 7z archive and extract it at install time using the `Nsis7z` plugin. This keeps the NSIS datablock well below the and yields comparable or better final installer size than the previous approach, along with faster build times.

While at it, this commit also modernizes the Windows build environment to unblock a separate wine-devel install regression that has been affecting Odoo 17.0 nightlies on Debian Bookworm.

Changes:
 - Bundle `.po` files into `i18n_bundle.7z` inside the build container prior to invoking makensis; extract it at install time via the `Nsis7z` plugin.
 - Bump the base image from Debian Bookworm to Trixie.
 - Switch from `wine-devel` to `wine-stable`, which resolves the install regression on Bookworm-based builds.
 - Upgrade NSIS to the latest release.
 - Refactor the NSIS installation step to remove the hardcoded version from `package.py`.

This fix is made in Odoo 17.0 to unblock the wine-devel issue there and to benefit from the smaller installer size on supported stable branches.