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  mailings, as it may have become outdated since it was sent.

This commit also removes the outdated demo in mass_mailing_sale.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:
- 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

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

### 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

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

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

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

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

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

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
1. Install sale_timesheet.
2. Create a service product with:
   - Invoicing Policy: Prepaid/Fixed Price
   - Create on Order: Project & Task
3. Create a sales order with this product.
4. Open the generated project > dashboard and verify that "To Invoice" shows $1.
5. Create a project update and observe that "To Invoice" also shows $1.
6. Return to the sales order, create and post the invoice.
7. Open the project dashboard again and verify that "To Invoice" is now $0.
8. Create another project update.

Issue:
------
The project update margin still displays $1 under "To Invoice" even though the sales order has already been fully invoiced.

Cause:
------
The project update template displays the aggregated profitability totals (`profitability['total']['revenues']` and `profitability['total']['costs']`) instead of the dedicated `to_bill_to_invoice` and `billed_invoiced` values, causing stale "to invoice" amounts to persist after invoicing.

Solution:
---------
Use the `to_bill_to_invoice` and `billed_invoiced` values when rendering the project update profitability report.

opw-6323869



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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#273605

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

When a bus process restarts, every client on every database it serves loses its websocket at the same instant and immediately schedules a reconnection. Each database that comes back triggers a registry recompute server-side, so a tight reconnection window makes all of those recomputes land together and pile up on the freshly started process.

The jitter added to each reconnection delay was only one second, far too narrow to break up that wave. Widen it to thirty seconds so the retries of the many clients fan out over a much wider window and the registry recomputes spread over time instead of colliding.

Raise the ceiling on the retry delay to two minutes to match that wider spread, and drop the exponential growth factor: with a thirty-second jitter accumulating on every attempt, the delay already climbs on its own, so scaling it further only pushed clients toward the ceiling sooner without spreading them any better.

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

Current behavior before PR:

Desired behavior after PR is merged:




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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276869

Before this commit, the down payments line of the project profitability panel had no drill down action for salespersons and billing users without accounting access, because the group references were written with a trailing comma inside the XML id, making the two checks silently fail for everyone. Only the accounting read group check, written correctly, was effective.

Steps to reproduce:
- create a service product with "Create on Order: Project & Task", sell it on a sale order and confirm it
- create a down payment invoice from the sale order and post it
- create a user with Sales "User: All Documents" access, Project "User" access and no accounting access
- as that user, open the dashboard of the generated project and look at the Down Payments line of the profitability panel

The Down Payments amount is displayed as plain text, while a user with accounting access can click it to open the related invoices, as intended for the salesperson too.

Solution:
Move the commas out of the group references.

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

Seven entries of the Mexican chart of accounts template carry a name belonging
to a **different** group, copied from a neighbouring entry. Each record's XML ID
still states the intended name, which is what this restores.

| Code | Field | Before | After |
|---|---|---|---|
| `6` | `name@es` | Gastos generales | Gastos |
| `252.07` | `name@es` | `account_subgroup_hipotecas_por_pagar_a_largo_plazo_nacional` | Hipotecas por pagar a largo plazo nacional |
| `602` | `name`, `name@es` | Cost of sales / Costo de venta | Selling expenses / Gastos de venta |
| `613` | `name@es` | Amortización contable | Depreciación contable |
| `614` | `name` | Accounting depreciation | Accounting amortisation |
| `701.06` | `name`, `name@es` | Interest on foreign bank charges / Intereses a cargo bancario extranjero | Interest payable by national natural persons / Intereses a cargo de personas físicas nacional |
| `702` | `name@es` | Utilidad cambiaria | Productos financieros |

### Why it is not cosmetic

The electronic accounting Chart of Accounts XML takes the `Desc` attribute of
every `<Ctas>` element from the *account group name* — `cfdicoa.xml`
(`t-att-Desc="account.get('name')"`), fed by `trial_balance.py`
`_l10n_mx_get_coa_values()`. Any `es_*` database therefore declares:

```xml
<catalogocuentas:Ctas CodAgrup="702" NumCta="702" Desc="Utilidad cambiaria" Nivel="1" Natur="A"/>
```

whereas the SAT catalogue (Anexo 24) publishes `702` as *Productos financieros*,
with `702.01 Utilidad cambiaria` … `702.10 Otros productos financieros` beneath
it. `CodAgrup` comes from `code_prefix_start` and stays correct, so the file
still validates against the XSD, but the declared description does not match the
official nomenclature. Trial Balance and Pólizas are unaffected — neither
exports group names.

### Evidence

- `252.07` contains its own XML ID as the Spanish name.
- `602` duplicates `501.01`, yet its children are `Sueldos y Salarios`,
  `Compensaciones`, `Tiempos extras`.
- `613` and `614` are swapped in one language each: `613`'s children are
  depreciations, `614`'s are amortisations.
- `701.06` duplicates `701.05` in both languages; the correct name is symmetric
  to `701.07` and to `702.06`.
- `6` is the only single-digit root group whose Spanish name does not match its
  XML ID (`account_group_gastos`).

### Notes

Introduced in d782b8b92557; correct in 15.0, where the names lived in
`account.account.tag.csv`. Still present in 18.0, 19.0 and master, hence
targeting 17.0. Template data only — existing databases are unaffected until the
chart is (re)installed, and renaming a group moves no balance.

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277426

## 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

Steps to reproduce the problem:

* Create a SO line by code setting a specific unit price.
* Modify afterwards the quantity.

Result: The unit price is reset.

Expected behavior: The unit price is kept.

You can exercise it with this code in the shell:

```python
from odoo import Command
partner = env["res.partner"].create({"name": "Test partner"})
product = env["product.product"].create({"name": "Test product", "list_price": 60.0})
order = env["sale.order"].create(
    {
        "partner_id": cls.partner.id,
        "order_line": [Command.create({"product_id": cls.product.id, "price_unit": 100})],
    }
)
print(order.order_line.price_unit)  # It's 100
order.order_line.product_uom_qty = 2
print(order.order_line.price_unit)  # It's 60!
```

This is because when the technical price is not set on SO line creation, the value is set on precompute as the unit price, thus being considered non manually modified, and consequently being reset.

It can be fixed setting a different value from the unit price. For not conflicting with any of the creation possible values, a high negative number is set.

@Tecnativa

When an employee has many validated accrual allocations on the same leave type and at least one approved future leave on that leave type, opening the time off dashboard, the employee form, "My Profile" or validating a new allocation becomes very slow. The slowdown gets worse with each extra allocation.

### Steps to reproduce

1. Install Time Off.
2. Time Off > Configuration > Accrual Plans: create a plan.
3. Time Off > Management > Allocations: create and validate an Accrual Allocation for an employee (e.g., Paid Time Off).
4. Time Off > Management > Time Off: create and approve a request for the same employee starting a few months in the future.
5. Create and validate several more accrual allocations of the same type for the same employee. Each validation gets progressively slower.
6. Open the dashboard or employee form; Odoo hangs for several seconds.

### Cause

The reason is that `hr.employee._get_consumed_leaves` and `hr.leave.allocation._process_accrual_plans` call each other in a loop:

```text
_get_consumed_leaves
   _get_future_leaves_on
      _process_accrual_plans
         _get_leaves_taken
         _get_consumed_leaves
            ...
```

The existing `precomputed_allocations` guard only stops re-entry for the single allocation being simulated. All sibling allocations on the same employee and leave type still trigger a full nested simulation, so the work grows very fast with the number of allocations.

On top of that, `_process_accrual_plans` walks the timeline one tick at a time (one day for daily plans). On every tick it calls `_get_leaves_taken`, which calls `_get_consumed_leaves` again. For most of those ticks nothing has changed: no leave has entered the window, the allocation has not hit its capacity, and the `leaves_taken` value is the same as the previous tick. But the heavy work runs anyway.

### Fix

1. Memoize `_get_future_leaves_on` by `(allocation.id, accrual_date)` on a per-request dict carried through `env.context`.

2. In `_process_accrual_plans`, fetch the relevant leave `date_from` values once before the `while` loop and only recompute `leaves_taken` when it can actually have changed: a new leave date entered the window, or the allocation was at full capacity in the previous iteration. When the employee has no relevant leaves on this leave type, `leaves_taken` stays `0` for the whole loop and the heavy call is skipped entirely.

opw-5975939

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.