## Issue:
Exporting the general ledger as SIE4 set the duration of fiscal years to one year from the starting date of the fiscal year.

## Steps to reproduce:
- Create a fiscal year A of one month for year X-1 (December 1st to December31th year X-1)
- Create a fiscal year B of 1 year and 1 month (January 1st Year X to January 31th year X+1)
- Create Invoices in November year X-1, December year X-1, year X and in January year X+1 and confirm them
- Go to General Leder
- Set date to the fiscal year B
- Export as SIE4

### Current behavior:
- **for previous fiscal year**
	- declared fiscal year (#RAR field) goes :
		- from fiscal year X date_from -1 year
		- to fiscal year X date_to -1 year
	- However data are computed:
		- from fiscal year X date_from -1 year
		- to fiscal year X date_from -1 day
- **for current fiscal year**
	- declared fiscal year (#RAR field) goes :
		- from fiscal year X date_from
		- to fiscal year X date_to
	- However data are computed:
		- from fiscal year X date_from
		- to fiscal year X date_from +1 year

### Expected behavior:
Declared fiscal year match the one that is use for computation.
- for previous fiscal year
	- from fiscal year X-1 date_from
	- to fiscal year X date_from -1 day
- for current year
	- from fiscal year X date_from
	- to fiscal year X date_to

Cause:
Current year length was wrong because it [relied on](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/22b4100006ec24bf6e4b64042cbfdba360fcf470/l10n_se_sie4_export/models/account_general_ledger.py#L139-L140) the next_date_from which was wrong.


opw-6264766

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#125354

### 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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#121687

# 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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123263

### Issue:

Attributes of DoctoRelacionado node in the XML display an incorrect value because the exchange rate difference entry distorts the calculation, even though the invoice was fully settled.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ntQny0o8bkkfYtY5ZNBK0Yq7Rq0I-yfz/view

### Fix:
Sorting partials by "not exchange_move_id" first broke the chronological order whenever the invoice/payment partial itself carried an exchange difference (e.g. a foreign currency payment settled at another rate). This made the residual-chain algorithm consume the credit note's "other_residual" on the wrong payment, so ImpSaldoAnt/ImpPagado/ ImpSaldoInsoluto in the payment CFDI's DoctoRelacionado stayed wrong even though the invoice was fully paid.

Populate the exchange move mapping in a separate first pass and sort the partials purely by date/id, so credit notes are always deducted from the correct payment.

task-id:[6363092](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project/49/tasks/6363092)

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124882

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120595

The `bus_monitoring_service` test "connection considered as lost after failed reconnect attempt" fails about half of the time.

Since [1], the reconnect delay in tests is much smaller. The retry therefore fires while the mock socket is still in the closing state.

`_start` detects that socket and triggers the close event manually to keep the lifecycle consistent. In other cases, the error event will schedule a reconnect but in this case it will never arrive.

The worker is then left with no socket, no listeners and no pending timeout: it never reconnects.

Schedule the reconnection when handling a manually triggered close, since no error event will follow to do it.

[1]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/278075

runbot-944578

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#278779

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#257635

Steps to reproduce
---
1. Confirm a purchase order and receive it a few days later.
2. Open Purchase, Reporting, Purchase and add the "Effective Days To Arrival" measure.

Observed: the value is counted from the line's scheduled date instead of the order date, and can even be negative when the scheduled date precedes the confirmation date.

Issue
---
The metric is meant to be the effective lead time, the number of days between the order confirmation and the actual receipt, falling back to the planned "days to receive" when nothing has
been received yet according to [task](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project/809/tasks/3691573).
The query instead computes age(date_planned, COALESCE(date_done, date_order)), so once a receipt exists it returns date_planned - date_done (the gap between the
scheduled date and the receipt) rather than date_done - date_order.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/c06be48ce7277a667719fd756e0a1f63e91cda27/addons/purchase_stock/report/purchase_report.py#L20-L28

opw-6226523

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#268843

While preloading chart template data, if an account already exists in the db but has `active=False`, it is not found because archived records are excluded from the [`_search`].

As a result, the load attempts to create a new account. During creation, the Python constraint [`_ensure_code_is_unique`] searches with `active_test=False`, finds the archived account with the same code, and raises a ValidationError:
```py
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.2/addons/account/models/chart_template.py", line 735, in _load_data
    'noupdate': True,
                     ^
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.2/odoo/orm/models.py", line 4519, in _load_records
    records = self._load_records_create([data['values'] for data in to_create])
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.2/odoo/orm/models.py", line 4426, in _load_records_create
    records = self.create(vals_list)
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.2/odoo/orm/decorators.py", line 363, in create
    return method(self, vals_list)
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.2/addons/account/models/account_account.py", line 1057, in create
    records._ensure_code_is_unique()
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.2/addons/account/models/account_account.py", line 1135, in _ensure_code_is_unique
    raise ValidationError(
odoo.exceptions.ValidationError: Account codes must be unique. You can't create accounts with these duplicate codes: 1.1.1.02.003, 1.1.1.02.004
```

Steps to reproduce:
- In a `v19.0` database, install `l10n_ar` with demo data.
- The accounts with codes `1.1.1.02.003` and `1.1.1.02.004` are created by [`_create_outstanding_accounts`].
- Archive those accounts and upgrade to `v19.2`.
- During the upgrade, [`_get_latam_check_outstanding_account_account`] attempts to create new accounts with the same codes, triggering the duplicate code validation.

tbg-2840

[`_search`]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/619d8ce9f31349ed06b11ead4988a4a1d9ca6bdd/addons/account/models/chart_template.py#L438
[`_ensure_code_is_unique`]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/19.0/addons/account/models/account_account.py#L1133
[`_create_outstanding_accounts`]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/06a46b083fde5688d71c5602553316c9e7160b6a/addons/account/models/chart_template.py#L925C9-L949
[`_get_latam_check_outstanding_account_account`]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/saas-19.2/addons/l10n_latam_check/models/account_chart_template.py#L60-L76



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

Steps to reproduce:
- set the "Product Price" decimal precision to 3
- create two products with a price of 42.609 and a 15% excluded tax
- create an automatic promotion granting a 20.4% discount on these specific products
- in the PoS, sell both products: the reward line shows -20.00 and the order total 78.00
- pay 100.00 in cash and validate

The synced order total becomes 78.01 while the customer paid 78.00.

The discount reward line is created in the frontend with an unrounded price unit: -(85.22 * 20.4%) = -17.384879999999995. The frontend computes taxes on the price unit rounded to the "Product Price" precision (see `get_unit_price()`): -17.385 -> -17.39 - 2.61 = -20.00 tax included, hence the 78.00 total displayed and paid.

However, the raw value is what is sent to the server and stored as-is (`pos.order.line.price_unit` is declared with `digits=0`). Whenever the backend recomputes the amounts from the lines - e.g. when a cash change makes `_process_payment_lines()` call `_compute_prices()` - the taxes are computed on the raw value: -17.38 - 2.61 = -19.99, and the order total drifts to 78.01.

Round the reward line price unit to the "Product Price" precision when creating it, as `_getRewardLineValuesProduct()` already does, so the stored value is the one the frontend computed its totals with.

opw-6322031

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275961