You'll need two users :
	- Internal User A that can create projects
	- User B with a granted portal access

Optionnal third user to compare the flows :
	- Internal User B that can create tasks in a porject

- With User A, create a new project with atleast a single stage
- Go to the project settings
- Make sure that Visibility is set to : "All internal users and invited portal users"
- Click on Share Project
- Add User B as a new Collaborator with the Edit acess mode
- Confirm by clicking on Share Project
- Still in the project settings, click on the blue user icon in the top right to edit the Followers :
	- Make sure you are following the project
	- Click on the edit button and make sure Task Created is checked

 Optionnal for easiness of testing :
 - Go to the User A settings and in Preferences > Notifications : In Odoo

- Log in with User B (in a new incognito tab on the side is best)
- Go to Projects > The project that has been shared
- Create a new task

No notification is sent to User A. If the same flow is done using User C, then a notification is correctly sent.

The fields that determine to which users the notifications are sent to is `message_follower_ids`. In our case, the value of that field does not contain User A, so no notifcation is sent to them.

The method responsible for assigning values to that field is `_message_auto_subscribe()` which adds follower using subtypes parent relationship. The parent subtype of tasks are projects. So, essentially, we look for followers of the parent project, and see if we can add them to our task.

Before proceeding with the assignation, we check that the parent subtype's field was actually edited :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ea18f34a48d61350f80c79894bef66bf02840bfc/addons/mail/models/mail_thread.py#L4778-L4781

So we look that `updated_values` contains "project_id". `updated_values` is created by the the `mail_thread` create method by joining the values in `vals_list` and the context default variables. In our case, this should be enough since `default_project_id` is provided when creating a task :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ea18f34a48d61350f80c79894bef66bf02840bfc/addons/mail/models/mail_thread.py#L340-L344

But, a bit before this, the task create method edits the context to replace 'default_project_id' by 'default_create_in_project_id' : https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ea18f34a48d61350f80c79894bef66bf02840bfc/addons/project/models/project_task.py#L1102-L1109

So we do not detect that `project_id` has been changed and don't actually add the followers.

We remove the custom 'default_create_in_project_id` context

opw-6026932

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#278353

When a POS order is invoiced after its session has been closed, `_create_misc_reversal_move` builds a misc entry that reverses the portion of the closing entry corresponding to that order. It does so by negating `balance` and `amount_currency` on every prepared line, but leaves `tax_base_amount` on tax lines untouched.

As a result the reversal move ends up with tax lines whose `balance` sign is flipped relative to the source order while `tax_base_amount` keeps the source sign, breaking the invariant
`sign(balance) == sign(tax_base_amount)` that holds for every other correctly-generated tax line in the system.

Downstream, any report reading `tax_base_amount` directly (Audit view from the Tax Report, Journal Items XLSX export, custom exports) shows a base amount signed for the wrong direction alongside a debit/credit of the opposite sign, which is confusing and, for tax returns computed from `tax_base_amount`, incorrect.

Negate `tax_base_amount` alongside `balance` and `amount_currency` so the reversal move stays internally consistent.

opw-5975658

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#276534

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

Steps:

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

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

opw-6279755

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277067
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#269496

Steps to reproduce the bug:
- Install l10n_ke_edi_oscu_stock
- Run Test_sale_mrp_kit_bom_cogs

Problem:
```self.assertAlmostEqual(stock_out_aml.credit, 1.53, msg="Should not include the value of consumable component")
AssertionError: 3.07 != 1.53 within 7 places (1.5399999999999998 difference) : Should not include the value of consumable component
```
The test delivered 1 whole unit of every component of Kit A regardless of the fractional quantity actually needed to produce a single kit (0.34/0.14/0.2 units for Component A/B/BB respectively). This went unnoticed under the default invoice_policy 'order', since qty_delivered never drives the invoiced quantity in that case.

l10n_ke_edi_oscu_stock forces invoice_policy to 'delivery' for storable products that have no explicit company_id, which is the case for the products created in this test. With invoice_policy 'delivery', _compute_kit_quantities() correctly reads the over-delivered components as enough stock to form 2 complete kits (min ratio 2.94, floored to 2) instead of 1, doubling the invoiced quantity and the resulting COGS (3.07 instead of 1.53).

runbot-243633

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277519

[FIX] website_hr_recruitment: fix country filter

Bug reproduction:
    1 - Recruitment, you need to have 1 remote and 1 US jobs at least.
    2 - Go to job page in website, activate country filter.
    3 - Select US jobs and search for the remote job.
    4 - All countries filter is readonly and it is not pressable.

Bug cause:
    1 - Check is done with jobs value
        1.1 - If no matching, readonly button is displayed.

Bug solution:
    1 - count_per_filter is used instead of jobs
        1.1 - Even there are matchings for other countries, it shows.
    2 - Also, searched keyword is added to filter url
        2.1 - When there is search in other country and we click to it:
            2.2 - The searched keyword will be still there.

task-6284436

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#277726

### Steps to reproduce:

- Create 2 companies: c1, c2
- Create 2 storable products: P, Comp
- In c1 update the available qty of P to 10 units and its cost to 50
- In c2 create a kit bom for P: 1 x Comp
- With c1 > Accounting > Review > inventory > Inventory Valuation
#### > The total value of Super product is 0 instead of 500

### Cause of the issue:

The total value of the product will be set to 0 since the `qty_available` of the product is incorrectly computed to be 0:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/cb7b3de6cea07464bcadd1325f52533d34ce09bc/addons/stock_account/models/product.py#L240-L243
This happens because the `_find_bom` used in the override of the `_compute_quantities_dict` in mrp does not consider take the contextual company into account:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/cb7b3de6cea07464bcadd1325f52533d34ce09bc/addons/mrp/models/product.py#L271-L289 and hence considers incorrectly that the product is a kit.

### Note:

We make the same company dependency as in the `is_kits` computation: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/cb7b3de6cea07464bcadd1325f52533d34ce09bc/addons/mrp/models/product.py#L41-L47

opw-6361690

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276306

Steps to reproduce the issue easily:
- Remove the section in the footer.
- Drop enough snippets to have a scroll bar and to not see the footer when the scroll is at the top.
- Drop the "Pricelist" snippet at the bottom of the page and click on a column.
- Scroll up so the footer and the bottom of the snippet are not visible, and add a pricelist item with the "Add Product" option.
- => The page scrolls to the new item, but a big white space appears at the bottom of the screen, as if we scrolled too far.

The same issue happens with similar steps in the following cases:
- When using any option using the `addItem` action.
- When undoing/redoing a step that was done in an element not in the viewport (the screen will scroll to it and we will have the issue).
- When showing an invisible element (the screen will scroll to it if not in the viewport)
- Adding a grid item with the "Add Elements" option.
- Adding a new card in the "Floating Cards" snippet.

The common point to all these cases is that they all scroll to the added or shown element with the `scrollIntoView` built-in function, which scrolls everything, including the viewport. It also doesn't take into account the header that changes during the scroll, often ending with the element hidden by the header.

This commit fixes these issues by using the builder `scrollTo` util, which takes the header into account and only scrolls what needs to be. This function should always be preferred when scrolling in the builder.

task-6314322

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275686

### Batch per all moves, not per product

**Problem:**
In https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/250526, moves are batched in order to prevent memory error in databases
with many stock.move. However, the batching is done on the moves per product,
meaning batches can be very small relative to the limit, and this causes
unecessary queries compared to batching per all moves to process.

**Solution:**
Iterate through all moves rather than per product, and use/save the per product
results directly in the relevant dicts.

---

### Batch and prefetch for initial product std_price

**Problem:**
When initializing products' standard price before replaying valuation, the
first stock.move is read. This happens before any prefetching or batching
occurs, so a query is made per move and contributes to performance issues.

**Solution:**
Batch and prefetch the products' first moves, then initialize the standard
price.

---

### Use cached is_in and is_out values

**Problem:**
In `_get_valued_qty()`, `_is_in()` and `_is_out()` are called for each move,
but these methods are already called for these moves and cached as `is_in` and
`is_out`.

**Solution:**
Replace the method calls with the cached fields. If the move is not done, we
fallback to the methods as the cached fields will be false for not done moves.

---

**Perf Tables:**
Record: product.template, each with AVCO automated valuation and a done in move

Today:
|Record count|Time before|Queries before|Time after|Queries after|
|------------|-----------|--------------|----------|-------------|
|1k          |1.08s      |264           |697ms     |235          |
|5k          |2.74s      |864           |2.23s     |864          |
|10k         |4.83s      |1375          |4.56s     |1870         |

At Date:
|Record count|Time before|Queries before|Time after|Queries after|
|------------|-----------|--------------|----------|-------------|
|1k          |3.10s      |6109          |925ms     |386          |
|5k          |14.68s     |30299         |3.50s     |1564         |
|10k         |26.98s     |59173         |7.16s     |3590         |

opw-6134244

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#261624