Following the fix made in community branch, this adds a test veryfing the expected behavior in case of a fluctuating rate for the domestic currency.

Scenario 2: fluctuating domestic (USD) rate
 USD rate=1 from Jan 1 to Jun 30, USD rate=3 from Jul 1 to Dec 31
 EUR rates unchanged: 2 from Jan 1, 4 from Jul 1

 Correct conversion factors (= USD_rate / EUR_rate):
  Jan 1 – Jun 30 (182 days): 1/2 = 0.50
  Jul 1 – Dec 31 (184 days): 3/4 = 0.75

 Current rate at 2020-12-31:      3/4 = 0.75
 Correct average rate:            (0.50 * 182 + 0.75 * 184) / 366 = 229/366 ≈ 0.62568
 Previsouly bugged average rate (USD fixed at current=3): (1.50 * 182 + 0.75 * 184) / 366 = 411/366 ≈ 1.12295

 Historical equity rates (correct vs previously bugged):
  Mar 1 (USD=1, EUR=2): correct = 1/2 = 0.50; buggy = 3/2 = 1.50  → 40 * 0.50 = 20 vs 40 * 1.50 = 60
  Oct 1 (USD=3, EUR=4): correct = 3/4 = 0.75; buggy = 3/4 = 0.75  → 60 * 0.75 = 45 (same by coincidence)

task-5953104

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123055

## Problem

When generating an export CFE (e-Factura Exportación) in the Uruguayan EDI module, invoices that include a discount line equal to the subtotal — resulting in a **total of 0.00** — were not handled correctly by the XML/CFE generation
logic.

This use case is valid and required by exporters who need to reflect the declared value of goods/services while invoicing at zero (e.g. to comply with customs or incoterm requirements such as FCA). In Uruware's validation portal, the "Descuentos y Recargos" (discounts & surcharges) section of the subtotal block must be correctly populated for the CFE to be accepted.

**Example:** An invoice with a line of 648.00 UYU and a global discount of −648.00 UYU → Total: 0.00. The export value is still declared, taxes are zero, but the CFE must reflect the discount amount explicitly.

<img width="592" height="679" alt="example_expo_invoice_discount" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/aa83c158-e342-4da5-a251-fc209bbed5c4" />

## Root Cause

The CFE template (`cfe_template.xml`) and the move computation logic (`account_move.py`) did not account for the case where export invoices carry line-level or global discounts that zero out the total. The discount amount was
either omitted from the XML nodes or computed incorrectly, causing Uruware validation to fail or the discount block to not render.

## Fix

- **`l10n_uy_edi/models/account_move.py`** — Updated the export invoice computation to correctly include discount amounts in the CFE data dict, ensuring the `ValorDR` is filled with the value of the discount per line.
- **`l10n_uy_edi/views/cfe_template.xml`** — Adjusted the template condition so `MntExpoyAsim` node accepts 0 as value.

## Steps to Reproduce (before fix)

1. Create an export invoice (e-Factura Exportación) for a foreign partner.
2. Add a product line with a unit price, e.g. 216.00 × 3 = 648.00 UYU.
3. Add a global discount of 648.00 (same amount) so the total is 0.00.
4. Confirm and send to Uruware — the CFE is rejected / discount block is missing.

## Verification

After the fix, the same invoice generates a valid CFE accepted by Uruware with the discount correctly reflected in the `DscRcgGlobal` node and the discount line visible on the printed document.

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

## Issue
When creating a Contract Template for a Swiss company, the template does not match the version shown in the Employee's view. Also, some fields are not correctly applied when loading a contract template on an employee (e.g. `hourly_wage`, `wage`, ...).

## Steps to reproduce
1. Install *Switzerland - Swissdec Certified ELM 5.0 - Payroll* (`l10n_ch_hr_payroll`)
2. (Create and) Use a Swiss company
3. In Employees > Configuration > Contract Templates, create a Contract Template
    - Wage Type: Hourly Wage
    - Hourly Wage: Any value > 0
    - **(Notice how the aforementionned fields are missing from the template)**
4. In Employees > Employees, create an Employee
5. On the new employee's view, on the Payroll tab, click "Load Template"
and load the template created in step 3
6. **The data from the template is not applied to the employee's contract**

## Cause
The fields loaded from a contract template are listed in the `whitelist` variable of the `hr.version.wizard`:

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5c3deb11627f4d6762c4994207bd582afb96f064/addons/hr/wizard/hr_contract_template_wizard.py#L15-L30

Multiple fields were missing from the whitelist (e.g. `hourly_wage`, `l10n_ch_has_{hourly|monthly|lesson}`, ...). These fields would not be loaded from the template when applying a template on an employee.

**This commit replicates the employee's version view on the contract template and adds the related fields to the whitelist for them to be correctly applied when loading a contract template.**

opw-5966664
opw-6128467

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#125212
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#110683

If one of the Payroll Structure Types has the Scheduled Pay field unset,
opening the Payroll dashboard raises a traceback.

Steps to reproduce the error:
- Install ``hr_payroll`` module
- Go to Payroll > Configuration > Settings > Set Payroll Closing Date > Save
- Go to Payroll > Configuration > Structure Types > Create a new Structure Type > Unset Scheduled Pay
- Open Dashboard

Traceback:
```py
AttributeError: 'bool' object has no attribute 'title'
```

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/9a3ea83a432f42f62076a50fca6bc771a2de96bf/hr_payroll/models/hr_payroll_warning.py#L413-L419
The dashboard collects the scheduled pay values from all structure types and
later calls ``schedule.title()`` to build the labels. When a Structure Type has
no Scheduled Pay configured, so ``schedule`` becomes ``False``, leading to the traceback.

``_get_schedule_pay`` method can return False at [1],
So, It will generate the traceback from below line also. https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/8a3d87d51a9a3c4df656a328a9179ee43541022d/hr_payroll/models/hr_payroll_warning.py#L401

Solution:
Added a fallback value when default scheduled pay is False.

[1]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/8a3d87d51a9a3c4df656a328a9179ee43541022d/hr_payroll/models/hr_payroll_warning.py#L149-L154

sentry-7583037488

Currently, an error occurs when a user removes the payslip dates.

**Steps to reproduce:**

 - Install the `l10n_mx_hr_payroll_account_edi` module with demo data.
 - Switch to `ZAPATERIA URTADO ÑERI` company
 - Go to `Payslips`, create a payslip.
 - Set an `employee`, and remove either the `start date` or the `end date` from Period..

`TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for +: 'bool' and 'relativedelta'`

After the [recent commit] adding a warning about the employee exceeding the salary limit, when the 
user removes the dates from the payslip, the compute method attempts to compute the warning 
from [1], and when it adds relativedelta to date_from, which is False, it raises the error [2].

This commit ensures that the payslip dates are checked first before adding relativedelta to the date 
and performing the comparison.

[recent commit]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/6abfa47dafe439f9328d606ef6ac5126ec6eb1f6

[1]- https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/53a7fd4d53ffd510ad42632c69ce9d3a22c59e70/hr_payroll/models/hr_payslip.py#L1446

[2]- https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/53a7fd4d53ffd510ad42632c69ce9d3a22c59e70/l10n_mx_hr_payroll_account_edi/models/hr_payslip.py#L272-L276

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124187
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#122643

### Issue before this commit:
When reverting a Guatemalan invoice (creating a credit note), the XML node FechaEmisionDocumentoOrigen incorrectly reports the EDI document's technical certification date instead of the original invoice's emission date. This causes the SAT to reject the document.

### Steps to reproduce the issue:
1. Download Accounting and l10n_gt
2. Revert an invoice (credit note) inserting a different date than the one of the invoice
3. See that FechaEmisionDocumentoOrigen report the date of the credit note instead of the one of the invoice

### Cause of the issue:
The _l10n_gt_edi_add_reference_values method extracted the date from original_document.datetime (the technical timestamp of when the XML was generated) rather than using the actual accounting date of the original invoice.

### Reason to introduce the fix:
SAT validation rules strictly require the reference date to match the exact commercial emission date of the original invoice. Fetching invoice_date directly ensures compliance, avoids timezone conversion errors, and prevents the XML from being rejected.
Source: https://www.lawinsider.com/es/contracts/dJXl4Vo79L2

<img width="730" height="205" alt="2026-07-17_10-19" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/802e7bb3-fcf9-48db-b86f-227b494001b6" />

opw-6394409

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124794

## Current behavior:
In Vietnam's Sales Tax Report, when unfolding until the minimum layer, the VAT now displays the value in negative

## Expected behavior:
The VAT value in the minimum layer should be consistent with the upper layers and kept positive

## Steps to reproduce:
- Install l10n_vn (l10n_vn_reports will install as well)
- Switch to VN Company
- With demo data, go to Invoicing / Reporting / Tax Report
- Change Tax Report (VN) to Sales/Purchase Tax Report (VN)
- Unfold the lines all the way to the minimum layer: VAT on sales of goods and services 10% -> INV/2026/00003
- Observe that the VAT 10% line is at negative, which is inconsistent with the Total line below

## Cause of the issue:
- In Odoo, tax journal items store tax_base_amount with the accounting sign (negative for sales). This is expected behavior
- However, Vietnamese VAT listing expects commercial amounts, which means sales bases need to be displayed as positive numbers

## Fix:
Normalized tax_base_amount sign in _query_tax_lines function before building the SQL query

opw-6344577

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#122785

In MPS, if a product’s Bill of Materials (BOM) is not specified at the time of addition, the system will not correctly account for batch size.

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
* Create a product with a bom that has a batch size of 2
* Open MPS
* Add the product
  - without specifying the bom
  - Route Manufacture
* Add 1 in the Forcast Demand -> the batch size from the bom it's not taken into account.

Observation:
-------------
When updating mps, it will call get_production_schedule_view_state: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/7092dd2cc3578c3f22d1fbc82d958d57e2f93553/mrp_mps/models/mrp_mps.py#L424 this function when calculating the quantity to resplenish will call _get_resplenish_qty: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/7092dd2cc3578c3f22d1fbc82d958d57e2f93553/mrp_mps/models/mrp_mps.py#L534 to know the quantity to resplenish it will need the batch size, in mps they will only consider the batch size from the bom registered: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/7092dd2cc3578c3f22d1fbc82d958d57e2f93553/mrp_mps/models/mrp_mps.py#L863-L865 
Since there is no default value for bom_id, If there is no bom selected, there is no batch size.

opw-6259956

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119560

A user without Planning rights cannot add a product from the catalog on a sale order

Steps to reproduce:
1. Install planning_field_service_sale_timesheet module
2. Go to Settings > Users & Companies > Users and open user Marc Demo
3. Set Planning rights to No
4. Go to Settings > Planning > Field Service and enable Quotations
5. Go to Planning, create a new planning slot with customer Acme Corporation, open it in fullscreen, click on the quotation smart button and create a new quotation
6. Log in as Marc Demo
7. Go to Sales and open the new quotation
8. Click on Catalog in the order lines
9. An access error is raised

Issue:
planning_field_service_sale_timesheet overrides `action_add_from_catalog` and tries to read sale.order.planning_slot_id but users can't always access this field as it either requires Administrator rights on Planning or that the planning.slot is not in draft
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/e92a86257cb99ee1010531ec10d8fc968623a31d/planning/security/planning_security.xml#L60-L69

Solution:
Check that the user has write rights before opening `action_view_material`

opw-6315647

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123228

Currently, an error occurs when grouping planning slots by role.

**Steps to Reproduce:**
 - Install the `Planning` module.
 - Go to `Planning` > `Configuration` > `Roles`.
 - Create a `role` without assigning any resource to it (or assign a resource without a working time).
 - Go to `Planning`, create a new `planning slot`, assign the `role` created above, set the start date to `20/07/2026 12:00 PM` and the end date to `21/07/2026 2:00 AM`.
 - Switch to the `Gantt view` of the `planning slots`.
 - Group by `Role` and set the custom date range to `07/19/2026 -> 07/20/2026`, then click `Apply`.

`KeyError: 1`

The error occurs when the user groups the planning slots by role in the Gantt view. During 
the computation of the Gantt progress bar, if the existing slot's role has no resource, or has 
a flexible resource without a calendar, the regular resources become empty [1]. Then it 
attempts to compute the valid work intervals for these empty resources [2], resulting in an 
empty calendar work interval dictionary ({}) [3]. Later, when computing the duration over the 
period with the valid range slots, it tries to access the resource directly from the empty 
calendar_intervals dictionary [4], which raises the error.

This commit ensures that, when no work intervals are available for a resource, an empty 
work interval is used instead.

[1]- https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/3871b75fb74a7b35bfea9610ca08b853eb723320/planning/models/planning_slot.py#L307

[2]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5663509fe5caa1191fafcea3b3879dcef9ceca8f/addons/resource/models/resource_resource.py#L220

[3]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/3871b75fb74a7b35bfea9610ca08b853eb723320/planning/models/planning_slot.py#L3415-L3417

[4]- https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/3871b75fb74a7b35bfea9610ca08b853eb723320/planning/models/planning_slot.py#L3300

sentry-7620222164

Previously, the `_preprocess_work_hours_data` method would abort early if no payslip was found for the given period. This prevented the correct generation or evaluation of expected Mexican work hours in contexts where a draft payslip does not yet exist (i.e., when an off-cycle payslip is initially generated for a given time period).

To resolve this, the strict dependency on the payslip record has been removed. It now falls back to the contract version's base data when a payslip is absent:
- The calendar defaults to the contract version's `resource_calendar_id`.
- The duration is assumed to be standard (`is_wrong_duration = False`).
- The Mexican schedule table (`l10n_mx_schedule_table`) is fetched globally from the environment (`hr.rule.parameter`) rather than relying on the payslip-specific helper method.

This ensures expected work hours and attendance fields are calculated consistently across all payroll workflows, regardless of whether the payslip has been instantiated.

opw-6351402

Steps to Reproduce:

- Go to Settings > Translations > Languages and select your active language.
- Change the Time Format to a 13:00:00 (24-hour)
- Click on the Attendance systray icon in the top navbar and Check In.
- Notice that the recorded time still displays in a 12-hour format.

Cause:

- The attendance popup doesn't enforce a strict 12-hour or 24-hour rule. Because of this missing rule, your web browser just uses your computer's default time settings. As a result, Odoo's actual language and time settings are completely ignored.

Fix:

- Replaced the browser-based formatting with the existing formatting utilities.
- Used is24HourFormat() to determine whether the active time format uses a 12-hour or 24-hour clock.

Solution:
- Dynamically selected the display format using:
    - HH:mm for 24-hour format
    - hh:mm a for 12-hour format
- Applied the selected format consistently for both check-in and check-out times so the systray now correctly follows the configured language time format.

task-6120540

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

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#278401
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#273410

[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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#274731

#### Issue:
When creating a reordering rule for a shared manufactured product in a multi-company database,
saving the rule may raise an `AccessError` on `mrp.bom`.

The orderpoint is still created, but the user sees a record-rule error if the product also
has BoMs in companies that are not currently active.

#### Example:
A product is shared across multiple companies, and each company has its own BoM for that product.
In the reproduced case, the active company has the correct variant BoM.
However, the orderpoint computation first checks the broader product-template BoM relation,
which may include BoMs from the other companies. As a result, Odoo can try to access
a BoM from another company while the user is only working in the active company,
causing an access error.

#### Steps to reproduce:
Use a multi-company database with MRP enabled.
Create or use a shared product available to multiple companies. Create BoMs for that product in more than one company. Set the active company to the company where the reordering rule should be created.
Create a reordering rule for the product.
Save the reordering rule.
Note the AccessError related to mrp.bom.

#### Root Cause:
The MRP orderpoint computations read `product_id.bom_ids` directly. This is the product-template BoM relation and can include BoMs from other companies for a shared product. Reading fields on those BoMs, such as `product_uom_id`, can hit the standard `mrp.bom` multi-company record rule.

#### Fix:
Prefer `product_id.variant_bom_ids` before falling back to `product_id.bom_ids` in the affected orderpoint computations. This avoids reading template-level BoMs from other companies when the product has a variant-specific BoM for the current reordering-rule use case.

opw-6253743

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275493
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#267411

On a production-sized database the `hr.leave.attendance.report` SQL
view took over three hours to run. This caused a significant load on the
upgrade platform when processing databases that have a large number of
`hr.employee` records. Specifically, when running `test_mock_crawl` and
mocking the `Attendances > Reporting > Time Off Ledger` menu.

PostgreSQL mis-estimated the row counts produced by the view:

- The public-holiday check combined an `OR` with a function-wrapped
  `BETWEEN` (`... AT TIME ZONE ... ::date`), which the planner cannot
  estimate; it predicted ~1 surviving row (actual: 29.4M) and chose
  nested loops that re-aggregated whole tables once per output row.
- The attendance sub-query aggregated the entire `hr_attendance`
  table with no date bound, and was re-executed per output row.
- The working schedule was resolved with a per-(employee, day)
  `LIMIT 1` lookup into `hr_version` (29.4M index probes).

Rewrite the view as a set of CTEs: every heavy table is scanned once,
joins use plain equality keys (hash-joinable), public holidays are
pre-expanded so their exclusion stays an anti-join, the attendance
aggregate is bounded to the report window, and hr_version is resolved
by expanding each version over the days it covers. None of the CTEs
are explicitly materialized: left to its own heuristic, PostgreSQL
inlines a CTE referenced only once as a plain subquery and materializes
the ones referenced more than once, which benchmarked faster than
forcing materialization everywhere.

This rewrites the body of the SQL view only: no schema change, no new
field, no index, no migration. The report output is unchanged.

Measured with EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS) on the same database:

  | metric         | before        | after    | factor |
  |----------------|---------------|----------|--------|
  | execution time | 11 852 235 ms | 1 834 ms | ~6500x |
  | buffer hits    | 115 311 556   | 71 890   | ~1600x |

upg-4288902

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#266108

### 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