**Steps to reproduce the issue:**

- Install the l10n_mx_edi module.
- Open the Accounting app and go to Customers → Invoices.
- From the invoice line, make the Tax Object field visible.
- Create a new invoice and add a product that has no Unit Price.
- Save the invoice.
- Edit the same invoice, set a Unit Price for the product, and save it again.
- Issue: The Tax Object field is not automatically set after the Unit Price is added.

**Description:**

- In our standard code, there is a condition that skips computing the Tax Object when the Unit Price is [0](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/615a5f756d708db95e22cdbdd6e7aca72ac769ec/l10n_mx_edi/models/account_move.py#L988). This is the expected behavior.
- However, after setting a Unit Price on the product, the Tax Object is not recomputed, so it remains unset.
- To resolve this issue, I added price_unit to the @api.depends decorator so that the Tax Object is recomputed whenever the Unit Price changes.

**Reference videos:**

Before the fix:
[screen-capture (2).webm](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/c1162fd9-52b8-4a8c-9ac2-39cf2ca3ad69)


After the fix:
[screen-capture (1).webm](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/1c05dc34-6778-487a-9bfc-635cf652e670)


OPW -6305080 
UPG - 4268848

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#125530
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123009

**Steps to reproduce the issue:**

- Install the l10n_mx_edi module.
- Open the Accounting app and go to Customers → Invoices.
- From the invoice line, make the Tax Object field visible.
- Create a new invoice and add a product that has no Unit Price.
- Save the invoice.
- Edit the same invoice, set a Unit Price for the product, and save it again.
- Issue: The Tax Object field is not automatically set after the Unit Price is added.

**Description:**

- In our standard code, there is a condition that skips computing the Tax Object when the Unit Price is [0](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/615a5f756d708db95e22cdbdd6e7aca72ac769ec/l10n_mx_edi/models/account_move.py#L988). This is the expected behavior.
- However, after setting a Unit Price on the product, the Tax Object is not recomputed, so it remains unset.
- To resolve this issue, I added price_unit to the @api.depends decorator so that the Tax Object is recomputed whenever the Unit Price changes.

**Reference videos:**

Before the fix:
[screen-capture (2).webm](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/c1162fd9-52b8-4a8c-9ac2-39cf2ca3ad69)


After the fix:
[screen-capture (1).webm](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/1c05dc34-6778-487a-9bfc-635cf652e670)


OPW -6305080 
UPG - 4268848

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#125098
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123009

## Steps to reproduce:

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

Explanation:

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

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

opw-6085964

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

**Problem:**
On a website with rental planning enabled, a customer can book a planning-backed rental product through eCommerce even when no planning resource is free for the requested window. The cart lets them increase the quantity past the available capacity and proceed all the way through checkout without any availability gate.

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Install `website_sale_renting_planning`.
2. Create a planning role with `sync_shift_rental` and one resource.
3. Create a service product with `rent_ok=True`, `planning_enabled=True` and the role above.
4. Pre-book the resource for some window via a `planning.slot`.
5. From eCommerce, add the product to the cart for the same window.
6. Proceed to checkout/payment.

**Current behavior:**
The cart is considered ready, no warning is shown, and payment can proceed even though no planning resource is free for the chosen period.

**Expected behavior:**
The cart should be flagged as not ready and pre-payment validation should refuse to confirm until the customer picks a different date or quantity.

**Cause of the issue:**
`sale.order._available_dates_for_renting` in `website_sale_renting` is the documented hook for "stock availability" gating of the cart and pre-payment flow (called from `_is_cart_ready` and from `_check_cart_is_ready_to_be_paid`). `website_sale_stock_renting` overrides it to apply a per-line stock check, but
`website_sale_renting_planning` has no such override, so planning-backed rental services reach payment with no availability gate at all.

**Fix:**
Apply the same gating pattern that `website_sale_stock_renting` already uses: override `_available_dates_for_renting` in `website_sale_renting_planning` so that, for each rental line whose product is a planning-synced rentable service, the cart is only considered valid when at least the requested quantity of planning resources is free during the rental window (mirroring the resource and leave filtering already done by `_planning_slot_vals_list_per_sol` at SO confirmation time). This puts the gate at the same point the stock-renting flow enforces it, keeping the public cart/checkout flow consistent across rentable product types.

opw-6247034

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#125534
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118943

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

### 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

### Problem

`Mail: Fetchmail Service` cron aborts with `AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'upper'` in `l10n_cl_edi/models/fetchmail_server.py::_process_incoming_customer_claim` when an incoming customer claim DTE has no `<RUTRecep>`:

```python
dte.findtext('.//ns0:RUTRecep', ...).upper() or
dte.findtext('.//ns0:RutReceptor', ...).upper()
```

`findtext()` returns `None` when the tag is missing, so `.upper()` blows up before the `or` fallback can run. Once the cron hits such a message it re-crashes on every subsequent run and blocks the whole mailbox until the offending mail is deleted.

### Fix

Guard each `findtext(...)` with `or ''` so the `or` chain actually falls through. Empty `partner_vat` is already handled by the existing "Partner … has not been found" branch a few lines below.

### Traceback (Odoo 19)

```
File "/mnt/extra-addons/enterprise/l10n_cl_edi/models/fetchmail_server.py", line 285, in _process_incoming_customer_claim
    dte.findtext('.//ns0:RUTRecep', namespaces=XML_NAMESPACES).upper() or
AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'upper'
```

### Ticket

No ticket open for this but opw-5257481 is related.

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123387

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:

- In the settings enable: Packages
- On the operation type `Delivery Order` set "Set Package Type"
- Create and confirm a delivery for 1 unit of a product P + reserve it
- Got to the barcode app to process the delivery
- Scan your product and click "put in pack"
#### > The put in pack wizard allowing you to set a package type on the new package does not pop up.

### Cause of the issue:

As a general rule of thumb the wizard is suppose to be displayed when the option is enabled and when a package/package type is not already provided to the call:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5dbc448d336c7ff22803ae91d5014eb6d0a07234/addons/stock/models/stock_package.py#L332-L341 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5dbc448d336c7ff22803ae91d5014eb6d0a07234/addons/stock/models/stock_move_line.py#L1236-L1238 However an override was added to the barcode module so that the wizard is never displayed when the action is launched from the barcode app: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/673d449f38cd3eff27c44270c8f7edf91d0ecd02/stock_barcode/models/stock_move_line.py#L193-L196

The idea behind this override was that you could provide the package type id via scans and hence that is was not necessary. However, if you click directly on the put in pack button, the wizard still make sense and should therefore be displayed under the same conditions.

opw-6325092

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#122308

[FIX] mrp_workorder_plm: avoid singleton traceback when matching BOM operations
**Issue**
Adding a step in a manufacturing order with two operations that are too similar
could lead to a traceback when proposing an improvement from the Shop Floor.

**Steps to reproduce**
- Install the Product Lifecycle Management app.
- Create a BOM for any product with two operations that:
	- Have the same name and work center
	- Have no variant
- Create and confirm a Manufacturing Order for that product.
- Open the Shop Floor view.
- Click the gear icon -> Update Instructions -> Improvement Suggestion -> Add a Step -> Propose a Change.
-> A traceback occurs

**Cause**
When adding a step:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/1c02615b73a2b4fb9f1ab91167a3c8d7c9ac824c/mrp_workorder_plm/models/mrp_workorder.py#L10
It tries to find the corresponding operation in the ECO's new BoM.
This relies on `_get_sync_values()`:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/1c02615b73a2b4fb9f1ab91167a3c8d7c9ac824c/mrp_plm/models/mrp_routing.py#L9-L13
Because two operations share the same name, work center, and no variant, both match the filter:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/1c02615b73a2b4fb9f1ab91167a3c8d7c9ac824c/mrp_workorder_plm/models/mrp_workorder.py#L39
This results in a singleton error when accessing `operation.id`:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/1c02615b73a2b4fb9f1ab91167a3c8d7c9ac824c/mrp_workorder_plm/models/mrp_workorder.py#L42

opw-6241880

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119404

### 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

Steps to reproduce the bug:
- Create a BOM for product P1 with one work order WO1
- Create 3 quality points linked to WO1 via the `operation_id` field
- Confirm a manufacturing order for P1:
    - 3 quality checks A → B → C are generated
- Open the shop floor for the work order:
    - Observe that all 3 quality checks are displayed
- Delete quality check B (the middle one)
- come back to the shop floor for the work order:
- Observe that quality check C is no longer displayed in the shop floor

Problem:
After deleting check B, check C disappeared from the shop floor. Quality checks are stored as a doubly-linked list via the `next_check_id` and `previous_check_id` fields on `quality.check`. The shop floor JS (`mrp_display_record.js`) traverses this list starting from the check with no `previous_check_id`, then follows `next_check_id` until the chain ends. When check B was deleted, it nullified the FK references pointing to it, leaving check A with `next_check_id = False` and check C with `previous_check_id = False`. The traversal from A therefore stopped immediately, and C was never reached.

No `unlink` override existed on `quality.check` to repair the chain before deletion.

Solution:
Added an `unlink` override that, before deleting each check, reconnects its predecessor and successor: if the deleted check has both a previous and a next, `prev.next_check_id` is set to `next` and `next.previous_check_id` is set to `prev`, preserving a valid chain for the remaining checks.

opw-6369298

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124118

## Current behavior:
In Malaysia's Statement of Account, the total and total overdue amounts
dont consider the selected Statement Date, and will calculate all the
balances up until today in the generated PDF report

## Expected behavior:
The total and total overdue amounts should only sum the balances included
in the report up until the selected Statement Date

## Steps to reproduce:
1. Install l10n_my_reports module, switch to Malaysian company
2. Go inside Invoicing > Report > Aged receivable
3. Select a specific date in the past
4. Observe that the total amounts dont match with the balance column, and wont change regardless of the date selected

## Cause of the issue:
The template used o.total_overdue which ignores the report domain
and statement date

## Fix:
Accumulate overdue_total in the template loop with the same domain
and date_to cutoff as the balance lines, so it always matches
the displayed Balance lines for the selected Statement Date

opw-6332970

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123694

In a [previous PR], a test was introduced to reject any `l10n_xx_hr_*` module that has a `countries` key in its manifest and depends on a module that also has that country key.

This test was too broad and rejected some valid cases:
1. A non-auto-install module can have a country key defined to add  flags in the apps kanban view. ([src])
2. A module that has a country-specific regular dependency, but not as an  auto-install condition.

The second case is illustrated by [l10n_us_hr_payroll], which should auto-install when `hr_payroll` is installed and a US company exists.
With the old test, achieving this required adding `l10n_us` to its auto-install dependencies. 
But, since `l10n_us` is not auto-installable, `l10n_us_hr_payroll` would not be installed if you create a DB with a US company and only install `hr_payroll`.

In practice, that module was still being installed via a [post-init hook] in `hr_payroll`. This hook was installing all `l10n_XX_hr_payroll` modules for each country where a company is located, which is the behavior of the `countries` parameter in the manifest.

This caused issues during upgrades as this runs late in the process: after the auto-discovery phase.
Modules installed by this hook would be considered as `uninstalled` until `hr_payroll` is loaded.


This commit narrows the check to only fail if:
- A module has a `country` key in its manifest, and
- It has a country-specific module in its **auto-install** dependencies.

Moreover, it modifies `l10n_us_hr_payroll` to correctly rely on the auto_install mechanism instead of the post-init hook.

[previous PR]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/101843
[src]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/6df9f92a537aa4bb4ee5dc946fe31c4e56e6dfea/odoo/addons/base/models/ir_module.py#L271-L273
[l10n_us_hr_payroll]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/24a33ffb769557be498d61328522bb77f68d3a5a/l10n_us_hr_payroll/__manifest__.py
[post-init hook]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/85185595cfd1ee5310ceb9dc80c0589accad2f19/hr_payroll/__init__.py#L21

Currently, an error occurs when the "Payroll: Update Data" scheduled action is run.

**Steps to Reproduce:**

 - Install `l10n_au_hr_payroll` with demo data.
 - Switch to `Australian Company`.
 - Go to `Payroll` > `Configuration` > `Salary` > `Rule Categories`. 
 - Delete all records related to the `Australian Company`. 
 - Go to `Scheduled Actions` and run `Payroll: Update Data`.

`ValueError: External ID not found in the system: l10n_au_hr_payroll.rule_category_ote`

After [this commit], the category_id field becomes non-required, allowing users to delete a rule 
category record even if it is linked to a salary rule. When updating the data file [1], an error is 
raised due to the missing rule category.

This commit ensures that when updating the salary rule data, it updates the category data 
beforehand as like [here]

[this commit]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/c663fd2a81b7f6b34f8199fdbdc4a75c4f21379e

[1] https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/b6612dd58276646b81a3a12cd48e8427ea5359c2/l10n_au_hr_payroll/models/hr_payslip.py#L76-L83

[here]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/b6612dd58276646b81a3a12cd48e8427ea5359c2/l10n_ch_hr_payroll/models/hr_payslip.py#L1074-L1087

sentry-7349905716

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
1. Install `documents_hr` and `web_studio` with demo data.
2. Add `document_count` to the Employees list view via Studio.
3. Create a second company with an employee, enable multi-company.
4. Open Employees list, click **All** in the search panel.

Issues:
------
Issue 1:
```python
File "/home/odoo/odoo/enterprise/documents_hr/models/hr_employee.py", line 25, in _compute_document_count
    if not self.company_id.documents_hr_settings:
File "/home/odoo/odoo/community/odoo/orm/fields.py", line 1429, in __get__
    record.ensure_one()
File "/home/odoo/odoo/community/odoo/orm/models.py", line 5640, in ensure_one
    raise ValueError("Expected singleton: %s" % self)
ValueError: Expected singleton: res.company(1, 2)
```

Issue 2:
```python
  File "/home/odoo/odoo/enterprise/documents_hr/models/hr_employee.py", line 31, in _compute_document_count
    ('partner_id', '=', self.work_contact_id.id)
  File "/home/odoo/odoo/community/odoo/orm/fields_misc.py", line 117, in __get__
    raise ValueError("Expected singleton: %s" % record)
ValueError: Expected singleton: res.partner(9, 8, 7)
```
Cause:
---------
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/38674448e387159d28f98c1678856fcaf5f7f52e/documents_hr/models/hr_employee.py#L23-L48
1. The document count computation assumes all employees belong to the same company by directly accessing `self.company_id.documents_hr_settings`. In a multi-company environment, `self` may contain employees from different companies, making self.company_id a multi-recordset and triggering a singleton error.

2. Similarly, when `documents_hr_settings` is disabled, the fallback computation accesses `self.work_contact_id` on a multi-recordset, causing another singleton error.

Solution:
-----------
Split the employees based on whether `documents_hr_settings` is enabled and compute each group separately.
Additionally, use the current employee's `work_contact_id` in the fallback computation to avoid singleton error.

**NOTE:**
This has been resolved from saas-19.4 onward with this improvement [commit](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/d018d8205300b434728129e199ae048cefbaa296).

opw-6351141

**_Steps to reproduce :_**

-  Install l10n_it_riba.
-  Configure a company with a San Marino (SM) IBAN as the bank account for the
   journal used for Ri.Ba.
-  Create a customer payment and add it to a Batch Payment using the Ri.Ba.
   payment method.
-  Validate the Batch Payment.

**_Observed behavior :_**

 The validation fails with the error:
   `Only bank accounts with an Italian IBAN are allowed to use Ri.Ba. payments`

**_Cause :_** 

 The Ri.Ba. validation logic only accepts IBANs with the IT country code and incorrectly rejects valid San Marino (SM) IBANs.

**_Fix :_**

-  Update the Ri.Ba. IBAN validation to accept both Italian (IT) and San Marino (SM) IBANs when generating Ri.Ba. payment files.

-  While validating Batch Payments for SM IBANs, we observed that the extracted value could overlap with the branch code portion, causing the generated RIBA record to exceed the expected 120-character length. This change updates the extraction logic to prevent overlap and ensure compliance with the required record format.

**_opw_** - 6303820

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#121439

# How to reproduce
For an employee with full attendances for april and may:
- Create payslip for the month of April, Compute Sheet & Confirm
- Create a Time off request for that employee ffrom the 1st of April to the 10th of April, Approve & Validate
> Since the April payroll is closed, you need to defer the Time Off
- Report to Next Month
- Create payslip for the month of May
> The deffered time off should be there
- Compute Sheet & Confirm
- Create a Time off request for that employee for the 3rd of May, Approve & Validate
> Again, the May payroll is closed, so you need to defer the Time Off

# The issue
You cannot defer the time off because "There is no work entries linked to this time off to report"

# The cause
When deferring a time off, we call `action_report_to_next_month` that will look for work entries generated during the leave period to defer :
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/f93882555864a1f0a2a3e3863780096c78923bfa/hr_payroll_holidays/models/hr_leave.py#L94-L101

The issue is that, since [this commit], we search for work entries that are not leaves and the first deferring we did transformed the work entries at the start of may into leaves.

[this commit]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/13ce65b8ca61f9a825f2876e2727cddfae83f894

opw-6318809

### Steps to reproduce:
- In a database with Switzerland localization, install 'Accounting' and 'Payroll'
- Manually change the debit and credit accounts on the Swiss ELM salary rules (rule code 1000)
- Install 'POS'
- Check the accounts you configured on the salary rules
>The accounts are reset to their default values

### Cause of Issue:
POS depends on the module `stock_account`. When `stock_account` is installed, the `_configure_journals` method in its `__init__.py` creates a new `account.journal` for inventory valuation. To apply default values to this journal, the method retrieves data from the chart template.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/7d16ef88784e18e885b97dbded3231775f1349d2/addons/stock_account/__init__.py#L41

The `hr_payroll_account` module overrides `_post_load_data` and unconditionally calls `_load_payroll_accounts(template_code, company)`. https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/fcf06997a0eb999af86e4b6917311a86f04a390e/hr_payroll_account/models/account_chart_template.py#L16-L18

This triggers the reinstallation of the default payroll accounts, which overwrites and discards any manual configuration changes the user has made to their salary rules.

### Fix:
Ensure that default payroll accounts are only reset during a genuine chart of accounts loading process, and not during localized post-load operations triggered by other modules.

opw-6251112

For an MO with component tracked by lot is possible to close it without assigning the lot number even when they are marked for manual consumption.
From the shopfloor this will close the MO that will disappear when it's gone it will throw a user error, without the MO reappearing.

Steps to reproduce
---------------------------
**Issue 1**
1) Create a product "final"
2) Create a product "component" tracked by lot
3) Update the on hand quantity and don't assign a lot number
4) Create a BoM for "final" with "component" as component and manual consumption
5) Create a MO and confirm it
6) Go to shopfloor
7) Set "final" quantity
8) Set "component" quantity
10) Close the MO
-> The MO disappear (leaving a user error)
-> Since the "component" does not have a lot number it should not disappear

**Issue 2**
Same steps as Issue 1 until step 6:
6*) Add "comp" as barcode to the product component
7*) Go to barcode
8*) Open the manufacturing order
9*) Add the quantity to final
10*) Scan "comp"
11*) Scan a non-existent lot number, ex: "12345"
-> It raise the error

Observation
----------------------

**Issue 1**
When clicking on "Closing production" it will call [onClickValidateButton](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/37b21f93828fae2caec87cfd8413e144751eefc0/mrp_workorder/static/src/mrp_display/mrp_display_record.js#L481-L482)() that will lead us to validate,
and validate will [call](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/37b21f93828fae2caec87cfd8413e144751eefc0/mrp_workorder/static/src/mrp_display/mrp_display_record.js#L511) the function [pre_button_mark_done](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/37b21f93828fae2caec87cfd8413e144751eefc0/mrp_workorder/static/src/mrp_display/mrp_display_record.js#L507) in python.

in pre_button_mark_done, we will skip any check on the lot number, since we already have set qty_producing (when setting "final" quantity), 
 it will avoid _set_quantities where a check for lot number is made:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/9218d302b0fd56c1854d95d3756c0f5e9c9c8700/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L2235-L2239
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/9218d302b0fd56c1854d95d3756c0f5e9c9c8700/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L2839-L2844
And it will also skip the consumption wizard since it doesn't check for lot number nor allow to set lot numbers:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/35f804995118e6ffe150c9c7a7bad4844bd0e0ed/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L1658-L1660
After avoiding both checks we go back to validate.

In validate and we update the variable underValidation which will [trigger the fadeout animation](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/37b21f93828fae2caec87cfd8413e144751eefc0/mrp_workorder/static/src/mrp_display/mrp_display_record.js#L154)
When the [animation ends](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/37b21f93828fae2caec87cfd8413e144751eefc0/mrp_workorder/static/src/mrp_display/mrp_display_record.js#L662-L665),
the call to realValidation will be triggered and will call productionValidation that will send a call to [button_mark_done](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/37b21f93828fae2caec87cfd8413e144751eefc0/mrp_workorder/static/src/mrp_display/mrp_display_record.js#L551)

In button_mark_done, when calling _action_done on the move_lines, we will finally check that there is a lot number, which will trigger an error :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/35f804995118e6ffe150c9c7a7bad4844bd0e0ed/addons/stock/models/stock_move_line.py#L664-L669
but because the fadeout animation is already over, the mo will have disappeared, which means we can't correct the userError that has been raised.

**Issue 2**
In barcode when scanning a lot after a product, it will not create a lot but only apply a lot_name :
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/7b57a2927aeb8abf84d0f6acc64a7e9bbc8f608d/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L1306-L1311
this cause an issue with the existing condition since it only pass the check if there is a lot, but in this case there only is a lot_name.

When we click on "Produce" in a Mo in barcode, it will call validate, that in this case, will call button_mark_done:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/80aaa507fd2196b90cea724ecab0fa0ed5f13db6/stock_barcode/static/src/components/main.xml#L163
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/80aaa507fd2196b90cea724ecab0fa0ed5f13db6/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L602-L605
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/80aaa507fd2196b90cea724ecab0fa0ed5f13db6/stock_barcode_mrp/static/src/models/barcode_mrp_model.js#L14

opw-6060310

**Problem:**
When an appointment is cancelled, the cancellation email is always sent in the organizer's (staff member's) language, ignoring the booking customer's language. The booking confirmation, by contrast, is correctly localized.

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Set a contact's language to a non-default one (e.g. Romanian).
2. Book an appointment for that contact (they are the booker/attendee).
3. Cancel the appointment.
4. The customer received the confirmation in Romanian but the cancellation email arrives in English.

**Current behavior:**
The cancellation email is rendered in the organizer's language.

**Expected behavior:**
The cancellation email is rendered in the booking customer's language, like the confirmation/invitation email.

**Cause of the issue:**
The cancellation uses `appointment_canceled_mail_template`, whose `lang` is `{{ object.partner_id.lang }}`. On `calendar.event`, `partner_id` is `related='user_id.partner_id'`, i.e. the organizer, not the customer. The template is posted once per event (via `_track_template`), so its single rendering language applies to every recipient, including attendees whose own language differs. The confirmation email is unaffected because it is the per-attendee `attendee_invitation_mail_template` (model `calendar.attendee`), rendered once per attendee in that attendee's language.

**Fix:**
Deriving the language from `appointment_booker_id` makes the cancellation consistent with the other appointment mails, which are meant for the person who booked the meeting. It falls back to `partner_id` when there is no booker (e.g. an event not created through the appointment flow), preserving the previous behavior in that case.

opw-6323179

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
1. Install Timesheets.
2. Create a new employee with a fully fixed working schedule (40h/week).
3. Open Timesheets > All Timesheets and create a new timesheet in the past week for this employee (e.g. 8 hours).
4. Observe the overtime indicator for the employee (it shows 32 hrs)
   (Click the left arrow to display it).
5. Change the timesheet encoding unit to "Days / Half-Days".
6. Return to Timesheets and observe the overtime indicator (it now correctly shows 4 days).
7. Install a language other than English (e.g. French).
8. Return to Timesheets and observe the overtime indicator again.

Issue:
--------
The remaining time value changes unexpectedly and displays 32 hours instead of 4 days.

Cause:
---------
In `get_timesheet_and_working_hours_for_employees`, the code determines whether the timesheet UoM is expressed in days by comparing the UoM name with the string `"days"`.

Since UoM names are translatable, this comparison becomes invalid when the user language changes (e.g. `"jours"` in French), causing the logic to skip the day conversion and return values in hours instead.
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/c48290e90fdeadf4f9ca8c44b035e601e7ed380a/timesheet_grid/models/hr_employee.py#L165-L169

Solution:
-----------
Compare the timesheet UoM record with the day UoM record directly instead of relying on translated string values.


see commit: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/5fbf194c5056566453a124812fd2614edfe19a82

opw-6279133