Issue:
When a shopper pays for an online order entirely using a reward (e.g. a discount code covering 100% of the total), the order total is zero. With automatic invoicing enabled, an invoice with an amount of 0 is created. But, the 0 invoice is never emailed to the customer. Whereas, for orders where the total is more than 0, an invoice is created, then emailed to the customer. The customer should be emailed the invoice, even if its amount is 0.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Enable automatic invoicing.
2. Create a code for a 100% discount.
3. As a shopper, add a product to cart on the website.
4. While checking out, apply the 100% discount code to the order.
5. Complete the checkout.
6. Confirm that an invoice was created and posted, but was not emailed to the customer.

Explanation:
Normally, order confirmation and invoicing are handled by the `_post_process` method on the `payment.transaction` model. With automatic invoicing enabled, `_post_process` confirms the sale order, creates the invoice, and sends the invoice via `_send_invoice` (another method on the `payment.transaction` model). If `sale.async_emails` is enabled, `_post_process` will trigger a cron that invokes `_send_invoice` instead of invoking it directly.

When an order is fully covered by a reward, there's nothing to pay. In this case, no payment.transaction record is ever created, and `_post_process` never runs. Instead, the order is confirmed through the `_validate_order` method on the `sale.order` model. The `sale_loyalty` module extends `_validate_order` so that, with automatic invoicing enabled, it will create and post an invoice for zero-amount orders. But, nothing in this path ever calls `_send_invoice` or an equivalent. So, the invoice is created and posted but never sent.

Solution:
This adds logic for sending invoices to the extension of `_validate_order` in the `sale_loyalty` module. We mirror the logic used in `_send_invoice` in the `payment.transaction` model.

Notes:
There is duplicated code from `_send_invoice` in this fix. That is because `_send_invoice`, a method on the `payment.transaction` model, can't be used in this flow. A fix that avoids code duplication would require serious refactoring.

This will never trigger a cron to send the invoice, even if `sale.async_emails` is enabled. That is because the cron invokes `_send_invoice`. Since fully reward-covered orders are probably not common, any performance benefits of using a cron are probably not significant. But, making a new cron to be used in this case is also an option.

opw-6363334

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277970
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275190

The bugfix introduced in https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/01d11a770f89c391f7c6a2c46a3d770d10afb428 made it so that "personal" outgoing mail servers are blocked/ignored from being used in email marketing as dedicated servers.

In doing so, it missed the fact that while in *Email Marketing > Settings*, the "Dedicated Server" picker now correctly ignores personal OMS entries, the selection widget for `mail_server_id` in `view_mail_mass_mailing_form` still let's you manually select a OMS with an owner set. As there is not warning or an explicit error, this can lead to accidental miss configurations on an email marketing campaign, where the selected OMS will be actually ignored by the backend.

To align the changes introduced by the bugfix, we add a search domain to the selection field, so that only OMS with `('owner_user_id', '=', False)` will be presented as a choice.

OPW-6388562

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#278918
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#278595

**Issue**
Printing an invoice for a returned dropshipped tracked product could display the wrong lot/serial number on the invoice report.

**Steps to reproduce**
- Activate "Display Lots & Serial Numbers on Invoices"
- Create a product tracked by serial/lot and enable the dropship route
- Create two lots: "lot1" and "lot2"
- Create and confirm a SO for quantity 2
- Confirm the PO and validate the dropship for both lots
- Create and post an invoice
- Return "lot2" from the dropship picking
- Create and post a credit note for quantity 1
- Click on print on the invoice 
-> The generated PDF displays "lot1 & lot2" instead of "lot1"

**Cause**
While rendering `account.report_invoice_with_payments`, the report calls `_get_invoiced_lot_values` to determine which lot/serial numbers should be displayed:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/786c373d5ac8afdfb79eb7a7d69c5eb83b919625/addons/sale_stock/models/account_move.py#L31-L32 `invoiced_qties = 2` since the invoice is on a quantity of 2 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/786c373d5ac8afdfb79eb7a7d69c5eb83b919625/addons/sale_stock/models/account_move.py#L44 Three stock move lines are retrieved from the SO:
- the two original dropship deliveries,
- the return move for `lot2`. https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/786c373d5ac8afdfb79eb7a7d69c5eb83b919625/addons/sale_stock/models/account_move.py#L63 However, none of them are considered as `is_stock_return` because the dropship locations use `supplier` instead of `internal`: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/786c373d5ac8afdfb79eb7a7d69c5eb83b919625/addons/sale_stock/models/account_move.py#L72-L76 As a consequence:
- The two original delivery move lines each keep quantity `1`: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/786c373d5ac8afdfb79eb7a7d69c5eb83b919625/addons/sale_stock/models/account_move.py#L69 they never pass through the return handling logic (as they should be): https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/786c373d5ac8afdfb79eb7a7d69c5eb83b919625/addons/sale_stock/models/account_move.py#L77-L80
- for the last one, `is_stock_return = False` while it should not, thus the quantity is 1 instead of 0. Furthermore, it does not pass by this code:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/8759429547e42e9f63b15a7c80475be46ef437e2/addons/sale_stock/models/account_move.py#L79 which would make the quantity for lot2 equalled to 0 (1-1) The quantities are therefore accumulated as:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/786c373d5ac8afdfb79eb7a7d69c5eb83b919625/addons/sale_stock/models/account_move.py#L92

resulting in:
`qties_per_lot = {lot1: 1, lot2: 2}`
instead of:
`qties_per_lot = {lot1: 1, lot2: 0}`

The report selects both lots since it starts with lot1 (qty of 1): https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/786c373d5ac8afdfb79eb7a7d69c5eb83b919625/addons/sale_stock/models/account_move.py#L94-L99

opw-6236855

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#270599

# How to reproduce
- Have two language in the db
- Create an e-Commerce category
- Have a different translation for each language for that category's name
- Copy the link to that category's name in one language (Should be something like /shop/category/name-x)
- Have two websites, each with a different default language
- Create a link to the shop category in each website.
> ! The link must be the exact same
> You can put it in the header menu for simplicity
- Open the website editor
- Do 2 or 3 times :
    - click on the category link and switch website

# The issue
A traceback is displayed

# Cause
This manipulation will make us enter an infinite redirect scenario described here :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f8741728294a5147c7d2427d9997738096386262/addons/website/static/src/client_actions/website_preview/website_builder_action.js#L371-L384

The problem is that this commit introduced an assignation to `iframe.contentDocument.body` before the patch :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/89994eb7a54ca606bab26b6d579d03e86c11ba60

But in our case, iframe.contentDocument is null, so it throws an error before the patch can be applied

opw-6322115

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276634

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#278690
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#266108

The bugfix introduced in https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/01d11a770f89c391f7c6a2c46a3d770d10afb428 made it so that "personal" outgoing mail servers are blocked/ignored from being used in email marketing as dedicated servers.

In doing so, it missed the fact that while in *Email Marketing > Settings*, the "Dedicated Server" picker now correctly ignores personal OMS entries, the selection widget for `mail_server_id` in `view_mail_mass_mailing_form` still let's you manually select a OMS with an owner set. As there is not warning or an explicit error, this can lead to accidental miss configurations on an email marketing campaign, where the selected OMS will be actually ignored by the backend.

To align the changes introduced by the bugfix, we add a search domain to the selection field, so that only OMS with `('owner_user_id', '=', False)` will be presented as a choice.

OPW-6388562

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#278595

# How to reproduce
- Have two language in the db
- Create an e-Commerce category
- Have a different translation for each language for that category's name
- Copy the link to that category's name in one language (Should be something like /shop/category/name-x)
- Have two websites, each with a different default language
- Create a link to the shop category in each website.
> ! The link must be the exact same
> You can put it in the header menu for simplicity
- Open the website editor
- Do 2 or 3 times :
    - click on the category link and switch website

# The issue
A traceback is displayed

# Cause
This manipulation will make us enter an infinite redirect scenario described here :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f8741728294a5147c7d2427d9997738096386262/addons/website/static/src/client_actions/website_preview/website_builder_action.js#L371-L384

The problem is that this commit introduced an assignation to `iframe.contentDocument.body` before the patch :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/89994eb7a54ca606bab26b6d579d03e86c11ba60

But in our case, iframe.contentDocument is null, so it throws an error before the patch can be applied

opw-6322115

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276634

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

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

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

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

task-6314322

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277865
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275686

**Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:**

When rendering floating-point numbers with high decimal accuracy (e.g., UoM quantities set to 10 decimals), the UI can occasionally display a trailing parasitic digit (such as 53000.0000000002 instead of 53000.0000000000).

This commit resolves the issue by backporting the formatting logic from master. The `maxDecDigits` calculation is moved outside the conditionals so it unconditionally caps precision for all numbers. Furthermore, the global significant digit ceiling is reduced from 15 to 14.

This 14-digit ceiling reserves a 1-digit buffer, allowing the newly introduced `formatFixedDecimals` utility to safely run `roundDecimals` on the float. This mathematically sanitizes the trailing corrupted digit before it is ever converted to a string.

opw-6313540

**Current behavior before PR:**
- With Product UoM set to 10 Decimal Accuracy, floats such as 53000 are displayed with a corrupted digit (e.g. 53000.0000000002)

**Desired behavior after PR is merged:**
- With Product UoM set to 10 Decimal Accuracy, floats such as 53000 are displayed without corrupted digits (e.g. 53000.000000000)

This PR is essentially a backport of https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/07da917f6e3319b4acde1029e77f69f1aba314b8 and https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/c4e7ba8d8fdfd7b0c442cf834f562ef8cedf019b for numbers.js

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277898
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#272940

Error-1 :
```
raise ValueError('External ID not found in the system: %s' % xmlid)
ValueError: External ID not found in the system:
account.1_l10n_id_domestic_fiscal_position
```

Error-2 :
```
raise ValueError('External ID not found in the system: %s' % xmlid)
ValueError: External ID not found in the system: account.1_tax_luxury_sales
```

Reason-1 :
- In [this](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/e342a45aceb60b44052c5d52e9ecc35a9a7340da) commit new account.fiscal.positions were added and linked to acc.tax using fiscal_position_ids .
- In [this](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/saas-19.2/addons/l10n_id/migrations/1.3/end-migrate_update_taxes.py) migration script, while creating taxes it didnt find fiscal positions, so need to create them first.

Reason-2 :
- original_tax_ids was also added in same commit, if client deleted those tax(ie tax_luxury_sales) will fail while creating `tax_luxury_sales_pemungut_ppn`, It needs to be created first too.

- upg : [4341887](https://upgrade.odoo.com/odoo/upgrade.request/4341887)
- opw : [6285978](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project/70/tasks/6285978)

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

Description of the issue this commit addresses:

When a member of the Invoicing group tries to create a payment trough the L10nPlAccountPaymentRegister wizard, upon clicking "Create Payment", an AccessError is thrown. Invoicing group members should be able to handle payments so this is an issue.

---

Steps to reproduce:

1. Make sure sale_management and l10n_pl_bank_verification are installed.
2. Create a new user with "Invoicing" Accounting group.
3. Create a new sales order with said user (any customer, any product)
4. Confirm the quotations and, from its form view, "Create Invoice".
5. Confirm the invoice and, from its form view, "Pay".
6. Upon clicking "Create Payment", an Access Error is thrown.

---

Desired behavior after this commit is merged:

This commit makes sure an Invoicing group member is able to create the payment withtout AccessErrors being thrown.

---

task-none
feedback from: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/267992

---

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#278688
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#270008

### Steps to reproduce:

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

### Cause of the issue:

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

### Note:

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

opw-6361690

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276306

Issue
-----
International deliveries for fractions of items (eg 500g of a product sold by kg) are rejected by Sendcloud.

Steps to reproduce
-----
- Setup Sendcloud
	- Fedex international
- Create a product
	- weight: 1kg
	- valid hs code
- Create a contact (outside EU if the company is in EU)
- Deliver 0.5 of the product to the contact

> Error "... parcel not returned from Sendcloud"

Cause
-----
Sendcloud returns he folloing error:

> "The total weight for declared items exceeds the total weight set for the shipment."

This is because the `weight` set on the shipment

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/99a13453cac8a7a4677cef3df8896329c90c9e99/delivery_sendcloud/models/sendcloud_service.py#L449-L464

corresponds to the weight of the package, whereas the weight set on the description of the product in `parcel_items` corresponds to the weight of one "full" unit of the product.

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/99a13453cac8a7a4677cef3df8896329c90c9e99/delivery_sendcloud/models/sendcloud_service.py#L327-L335

We cannot change the quantity in `parcel_items` to match the actual delivered one because the field should be an integer.

https://sendcloud.dev/api/v2/parcels/create-a-parcel-or-parcels#body-one-of-0-parcel-parcel-items-items-quantity

The price is also off, because it gets taken from the `move_line`, so it reflects the price of the actual quantity and not a "full" item.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/208a8a6a5adb8ec1f2710453c2ee3b54c55a9f1e/addons/stock_delivery/models/delivery_carrier.py#L235

Note that this issue is common to **all UoM types**.

Solution
-----
Since we cannot change the quantity, we can instead adapt the description and weight sent in `parcel_items`. For example, sending 300g of sugar, we would send
- description: "Sugar (0.3 kg)"
- weight: "0.300"

-----
Ticket:
opw-6346330

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277440

# How to reproduce
- Have two language in the db
- Create an e-Commerce category
- Have a different translation for each language for that category's name
- Copy the link to that category's name in one language (Should be something like /shop/category/name-x)
- Have two websites, each with a different default language
- Create a link to the shop category in each website.
> ! The link must be the exact same
> You can put it in the header menu for simplicity
- Open the website editor
- Do 2 or 3 times :
    - click on the category link and switch website

# The issue
A traceback is displayed

# Cause
This manipulation will make us enter an infinite redirect scenario described here :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f8741728294a5147c7d2427d9997738096386262/addons/website/static/src/client_actions/website_preview/website_builder_action.js#L371-L384

The problem is that this commit introduced an assignation to `iframe.contentDocument.body` before the patch :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/89994eb7a54ca606bab26b6d579d03e86c11ba60

But in our case, iframe.contentDocument is null, so it throws an error before the patch can be applied

opw-6322115

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276634

Issue caused because of https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/619d8ce9f31349ed06b11ead4988a4a1d9ca6bdd Steps to reproduce-
Create db with demo and install l10n_in
Create a new company for India (other than IN Company) Go to Settings -> Accounting/Invoice Tab -> Enable Ewaybill

traceback
```py
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/odoo/odoo18/community/odoo/orm/models.py", line 5385, in ensure_one
    _id, = self._ids
    ^^^^
ValueError: not enough values to unpack (expected 1, got 0)

During handling of the above exception, another exception occurred:

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/odoo/odoo18/community/odoo/http/router.py", line 273, in __call__
    response = serve_db(request)
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/odoo18/community/odoo/http/router.py", line 380, in serve_db
    registry = Registry(request.db)
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/odoo18/community/odoo/orm/registry.py", line 105, in __new__
    return cls.new(db_name)
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/odoo18/community/odoo/tools/func.py", line 67, in locked
    return func(inst, *args, **kwargs)
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/odoo18/community/odoo/orm/registry.py", line 217, in new
    cr.rollback()
  File "/home/odoo/odoo18/community/odoo/sql_db.py", line 568, in rollback
    with rollbacking:
  File "/home/odoo/.pyenv/versions/3.12.0/lib/python3.12/contextlib.py", line 144, in __exit__
    next(self.gen)
  File "/home/odoo/odoo18/community/odoo/orm/environments.py", line 1004, in rollbacking
    self.restore_state()
  File "/home/odoo/odoo18/community/odoo/orm/environments.py", line 1067, in restore_state
    self.reset()
  File "/home/odoo/odoo18/community/odoo/orm/environments.py", line 912, in reset
    self._reset_registry_change()
  File "/home/odoo/odoo18/community/odoo/orm/environments.py", line 832, in _reset_registry_change
    registry._setup_models__(cr)
  File "/home/odoo/odoo18/community/odoo/tools/func.py", line 67, in locked
    return func(inst, *args, **kwargs)
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/odoo18/community/odoo/orm/registry.py", line 422, in _setup_models__
    env.invalidate_all()
  File "/home/odoo/odoo18/community/odoo/orm/environments.py", line 395, in invalidate_all
    self.flush_all()
  File "/home/odoo/odoo18/community/odoo/orm/environments.py", line 413, in flush_all
    self._recompute_all()
  File "/home/odoo/odoo18/community/odoo/orm/environments.py", line 406, in _recompute_all
    self[field.model_name]._recompute_field(field)
  File "/home/odoo/odoo18/community/odoo/orm/models.py", line 6462, in _recompute_field
    field.recompute(records)
  File "/home/odoo/odoo18/community/odoo/orm/fields.py", line 2042, in recompute
    apply_except_missing(self.compute_value, recs)
  File "/home/odoo/odoo18/community/odoo/orm/fields.py", line 2012, in apply_except_missing
    func(records)
  File "/home/odoo/odoo18/community/odoo/orm/fields.py", line 2066, in compute_value
    records._compute_field_value(self)
  File "/home/odoo/odoo18/community/addons/mail/models/mail_thread.py", line 498, in _compute_field_value
    return super()._compute_field_value(field)
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/odoo18/community/odoo/orm/models.py", line 4387, in _compute_field_value
    determine(field.compute, self)
  File "/home/odoo/odoo18/community/odoo/orm/fields.py", line 82, in determine
    return needle(*args)
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/odoo18/community/addons/l10n_in_ewaybill/models/l10n_in_ewaybill.py", line 228, in _compute_document_partners_details
    seller_buyer_details = ewaybill._get_seller_buyer_details()
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/odoo18/community/addons/l10n_in_ewaybill/models/l10n_in_ewaybill.py", line 185, in _get_seller_buyer_details
    return move._get_l10n_in_seller_buyer_party()
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/odoo18/community/addons/l10n_in/models/account_invoice.py", line 629, in _get_l10n_in_seller_buyer_party
    self.ensure_one()
  File "/home/odoo/odoo18/community/odoo/orm/models.py", line 5388, in ensure_one
    raise ValueError("Expected singleton: %s" % self)
ValueError: Expected singleton: account.move()
```
In this commit, we resolve the above traceback

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

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