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/enterprise#125893
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124686

Currently, an error occurs when a user uploads a document.

**Steps to Reproduce:**
 - Install the `ai_documents` module.
 - Go to `Documents` and create a `folder`, or use an `existing one`.
 - Open the `folder` > click `Actions` > `Auto-sort`, and `save`.
 - Uninstall the `ai_documents` module.
 - Go back to `Documents`, open the `same folder`, and `upload any document`.
 - Error is logged in the `terminal`.

`ValueError: Invalid field documents.document.ai_sortable in condition ('ai_sortable', '=', True)`

When the ai_documents module is installed and the user enables Auto-sort for a folder [1], an 
automation rule and its linked server action are created [2] (if they do not already exist). 
Whenever a document is uploaded to that folder, the automation rule triggers the server action, 
which runs the AI prompt to classify and sort the document.
However, when the ai_documents module is uninstalled, the related automation rule and server 
action are not removed. As a result, uploading a document to the same folder still triggers the 
automation rule. While evaluating its domain, it attempts to access the ai_sortable field, which 
no longer exists because it is defined by the ai_documents module, raise the error [3].

This commit ensures that uninstalling the ai_documents module removes the related automation 
rules. The linked server actions are then deleted automatically through the field's ondelete='cascade' [4].

[1]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/c6d3efb164a23d555e30d0f0f7de3de2ef1d08d3/ai_documents/wizard/ai_documents_sort.py#L100

[2]- https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/c6d3efb164a23d555e30d0f0f7de3de2ef1d08d3/ai_documents/models/documents_document.py#L313-L330

[3]- https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/c6d3efb164a23d555e30d0f0f7de3de2ef1d08d3/ai_documents/models/documents_document.py#L321

[4]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/2cb2f33c871bf83c74098ada568e167aad24f2a5/addons/base_automation/models/ir_actions_server.py#L17


sentry-7607903354

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124488

Issue
-----
When making an international delivery to a partner with different invoice and delivery addresses, we send the delivery address as the `Sold To` address as well.

Problematic case 1
-----
- Create a belgian company
- Setup UPS
- Create a French customer
	- Add a different french delivery address
- Create a product (with some weight)
- Create a SO (with UPS delivery) to the customer & confirm
- Validate the transfer

> Commercial invoice `Sold To` uses the delivery address

Solution for case 1
-----
Use the delivery address' `commercial_partner_id`. This leads to another issue in some edge cases...

Problematic case 2 (caused by case 1 fix)
-----
- Create a belgian company
- Setup UPS
- Create a French customer
	- Add a delivery address in Switzerland
- Create a product (with some weight)
- Create a SO (with UPS delivery) to the customer & confirm
- Validate the transfer

> UPS error `The Sold To party's country code must be the same as the Ship To party's country code with the exception of Canada and satellite countries.`

Solution for case 2
-----
Default back to delivery address for the `Sold To` field when countries don't match, as this is a limitation of the UPS API. Warn the user, either on the SO or the transfer itself (if no SO).

Warning looks like this (on SO):
<img width="1914" height="716" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/f7aa73c4-f24c-42da-8f3e-6a58765ef020" />

-----
Ticket:
opw-6200263

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123163
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118031

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

Marketplace orders with discount lines could not match the
platform total: Odoo accumulated a small rounding residue vs Shopee's
total_amount / Lazada's order price.

sale_shopee
-----------
Changes:
- Fetch buyer-side escrow amounts via `_fetch_order_income` and pass them
  through `self.env.context` (`order_income`).
- Build item lines from the buyer-paid item price with `discount=0` and a
  recomputed tax-exclusive `price_unit`.
- Distribute order-level discounts (seller/platform vouchers and coins) as
  dedicated negative lines per product tax group via
  `_prepare_discount_lines_values`.
- Append a shipping line from `buyer_paid_shipping_fee` with fiscal-position
  mapped taxes.
- Reconcile any leftover residue with `_adjust_order_total` using a single
  tax-free amount-adjustment line.
- Register `default_discount_product` and configure it on upgrade (v1.1).


sale_lazada
-----------
- Port the same reconciliation model as shopee: reconciled line specs, discount=0 with
  discounted unit from paid_price, shipping line from shipping_fee, order-level
  "Discount line" distributed at order-level.

task-6112062

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#125601
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#117561

Currently, an error occurs when processing Ecuadorian EDI invoices that
use taxes from the `Special Consumptions (ICE)` tax group.

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install `l10n_ec_edi` and switch to an EC Company.
- Create a new tax with the `Tax Group` set to `Special Consumptions (ICE)`.
- Create an invoice using this tax.
- Confirm the invoice and click `Process Now`.

**Error:**
```
  File "/home/odoo/odoo/enterprise/saas-18.4/l10n_ec_edi/models/account_edi_format.py", line 373, in _l10n_ec_get_base_lines
    code_percentage = L10N_EC_VAT_SUBTAXES[tax_data['tax'].tax_group_id.l10n_ec_type]
KeyError: 'ice'
```

**Root Cause:**
At [1], non-VAT tax groups such as `ICE` are explicitly not supported
and are not included in `L10N_EC_VAT_SUBTAXES`.

At [2], the code assumes that every Ecuadorian tax group exists in
`L10N_EC_VAT_SUBTAXES` and directly indexes the mapping using
`tax_group_id.l10n_ec_type`. When an invoice uses an `ICE`
tax, causing an error.

**Fix:**
This commit prevents errors by using the tax's `Code ATS` as the
`codigoPorcentaje` value and the tax's `amount` as the `tarifa` in
the XML when the tax group is not present in `L10N_EC_VAT_SUBTAXES`.
(Confirm with the PO [here], just to fix it from 18.4, that the problem is 
that it is not working on the versions where we already introduced the feature.)

[1]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/a388b9298268eead53ffa9d33bff7e1927dae33c/l10n_ec_edi/models/account_move.py#L17-L38

[2]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/a388b9298268eead53ffa9d33bff7e1927dae33c/l10n_ec_edi/models/account_edi_format.py#L372-L377

[here]:
https://www.odoo.com/mail/message/1121493378

opw-6373984
opw-6430589
opw-6423812

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123918

## 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#125859
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#125354

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/enterprise#125893
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124686

Currently, an error occurs when a user uploads a document.

**Steps to Reproduce:**
 - Install the `ai_documents` module.
 - Go to `Documents` and create a `folder`, or use an `existing one`.
 - Open the `folder` > click `Actions` > `Auto-sort`, and `save`.
 - Uninstall the `ai_documents` module.
 - Go back to `Documents`, open the `same folder`, and `upload any document`.
 - Error is logged in the `terminal`.

`ValueError: Invalid field documents.document.ai_sortable in condition ('ai_sortable', '=', True)`

When the ai_documents module is installed and the user enables Auto-sort for a folder [1], an 
automation rule and its linked server action are created [2] (if they do not already exist). 
Whenever a document is uploaded to that folder, the automation rule triggers the server action, 
which runs the AI prompt to classify and sort the document.
However, when the ai_documents module is uninstalled, the related automation rule and server 
action are not removed. As a result, uploading a document to the same folder still triggers the 
automation rule. While evaluating its domain, it attempts to access the ai_sortable field, which 
no longer exists because it is defined by the ai_documents module, raise the error [3].

This commit ensures that uninstalling the ai_documents module removes the related automation 
rules. The linked server actions are then deleted automatically through the field's ondelete='cascade' [4].

[1]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/c6d3efb164a23d555e30d0f0f7de3de2ef1d08d3/ai_documents/wizard/ai_documents_sort.py#L100

[2]- https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/c6d3efb164a23d555e30d0f0f7de3de2ef1d08d3/ai_documents/models/documents_document.py#L313-L330

[3]- https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/c6d3efb164a23d555e30d0f0f7de3de2ef1d08d3/ai_documents/models/documents_document.py#L321

[4]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/2cb2f33c871bf83c74098ada568e167aad24f2a5/addons/base_automation/models/ir_actions_server.py#L17


sentry-7607903354

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124488

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

[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#123673
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119404

Steps to reproduce:
===================
1. Create a subscription product, allow one-time sale, sale price 5
2. Add a recurring price 10/month
3. On the pricelist, add an advanced rule: -10% for the monthly plan
4. Open the shop page and look at the product tile

Cause:
=======
On the /shop page, the subscription price displayed on a product tile is computed by `_get_sales_prices`. The cart has no plan selected yet at that point, so `request.cart.plan_id.id` is empty and was passed as `plan_id` to `_compute_price`.

In `product.pricelist.item._compute_base_price`, the recurring base price is only looked up when a `plan_id` is given: if rule_base == 'list_price' and product.recurring_invoice and plan_id: ... # find the recurring rule -> base = recurring price

With `plan_id` empty, that branch is skipped and the percentage rule falls back on the product's one-time `list_price` instead of the recurring price.

Example: one-time price 5, recurring price 10/month, pricelist rule -10% on the monthly plan.
=> Tile showed 4.5/month (5 * 0.9) instead of 9/month (10 * 0.9).

Solution:
=========
The chosen pricing already targets a plan, so pass `pricing.plan_id.id` to `_compute_price`, matching what the product page does in `_get_additionnal_combination_info`.

opw-6307398

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120872

Currently, an error occurs when processing Ecuadorian EDI invoices that
use taxes from the `Special Consumptions (ICE)` tax group.

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install `l10n_ec_edi` and switch to an EC Company.
- Create a new tax with the `Tax Group` set to `Special Consumptions (ICE)`.
- Create an invoice using this tax.
- Confirm the invoice and click `Process Now`.

**Error:**
```
  File "/home/odoo/odoo/enterprise/saas-18.4/l10n_ec_edi/models/account_edi_format.py", line 373, in _l10n_ec_get_base_lines
    code_percentage = L10N_EC_VAT_SUBTAXES[tax_data['tax'].tax_group_id.l10n_ec_type]
KeyError: 'ice'
```

**Root Cause:**
At [1], non-VAT tax groups such as `ICE` are explicitly not supported
and are not included in `L10N_EC_VAT_SUBTAXES`.

At [2], the code assumes that every Ecuadorian tax group exists in
`L10N_EC_VAT_SUBTAXES` and directly indexes the mapping using
`tax_group_id.l10n_ec_type`. When an invoice uses an `ICE`
tax, causing an error.

**Fix:**
This commit prevents errors by using the tax's `Code ATS` as the
`codigoPorcentaje` value and the tax's `amount` as the `tarifa` in
the XML when the tax group is not present in `L10N_EC_VAT_SUBTAXES`.
(Confirm with the PO [here], just to fix it from 18.4, that the problem is 
that it is not working on the versions where we already introduced the feature.)

[1]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/a388b9298268eead53ffa9d33bff7e1927dae33c/l10n_ec_edi/models/account_move.py#L17-L38

[2]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/a388b9298268eead53ffa9d33bff7e1927dae33c/l10n_ec_edi/models/account_edi_format.py#L372-L377

[here]:
https://www.odoo.com/mail/message/1121493378

opw-6373984
opw-6430589
opw-6423812

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123918

[`_l10n_mx_is_curp_needed`] was called with self instead of slip. However, the method expects a payslip record from its caller, [`_compute_issues`].

This typo was introduced in:
odoo/enterprise@07201466e54f28c6d295d63b908e9a65e39f4862

```py
  /home/odoo/src/enterprise/saas-19.3/hr_payroll/models/hr_payslip.py(1913)_compute_issues()
-> issues = generate_issue(slip, context)
  /home/odoo/src/enterprise/saas-19.3/l10n_mx_hr_payroll_account_edi/models/hr_payslip.py(235)_issue_mx_warnings()
-> if not slip.company_id.l10n_mx_curp and self._l10n_mx_is_curp_needed():
  /home/odoo/src/enterprise/saas-19.3/l10n_mx_hr_payroll_account_edi/models/hr_payslip.py(322)_l10n_mx_is_curp_needed()
-> not self.company_id.partner_id.is_company
  /home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.3/odoo/orm/fields.py(1726)__get__()
-> record.ensure_one()
> /home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.3/odoo/orm/models.py(5344)ensure_one()
-> raise ValueError("Expected singleton: %s" % self)
```
This causes module installation to fail with:
```py
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.3/odoo/tools/convert.py", line 779, in convert_csv_import
    raise Exception(env._(
Exception: Module loading l10n_mx_hr_payroll_account_edi failed: file l10n_mx_hr_payroll_account_edi/data/hr.employee.type.csv could not be processed:
Ocurrió un error desconocido durante la importación: <class 'ValueError'>: Expected singleton: res.partner(7, 9)
```

upg-4468049

[`_l10n_mx_is_curp_needed`]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/saas-19.3/l10n_mx_hr_payroll_account_edi/models/hr_payslip.py#L235
[`_compute_issues`]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/saas-19.3/hr_payroll/models/hr_payslip.py#L1904-L1913

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#125623

Currently, an error occurs when a user uploads a document.

**Steps to Reproduce:**
 - Install the `ai_documents` module.
 - Go to `Documents` and create a `folder`, or use an `existing one`.
 - Open the `folder` > click `Actions` > `Auto-sort`, and `save`.
 - Uninstall the `ai_documents` module.
 - Go back to `Documents`, open the `same folder`, and `upload any document`.
 - Error is logged in the `terminal`.

`ValueError: Invalid field documents.document.ai_sortable in condition ('ai_sortable', '=', True)`

When the ai_documents module is installed and the user enables Auto-sort for a folder [1], an 
automation rule and its linked server action are created [2] (if they do not already exist). 
Whenever a document is uploaded to that folder, the automation rule triggers the server action, 
which runs the AI prompt to classify and sort the document.
However, when the ai_documents module is uninstalled, the related automation rule and server 
action are not removed. As a result, uploading a document to the same folder still triggers the 
automation rule. While evaluating its domain, it attempts to access the ai_sortable field, which 
no longer exists because it is defined by the ai_documents module, raise the error [3].

This commit ensures that uninstalling the ai_documents module removes the related automation 
rules. The linked server actions are then deleted automatically through the field's ondelete='cascade' [4].

[1]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/c6d3efb164a23d555e30d0f0f7de3de2ef1d08d3/ai_documents/wizard/ai_documents_sort.py#L100

[2]- https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/c6d3efb164a23d555e30d0f0f7de3de2ef1d08d3/ai_documents/models/documents_document.py#L313-L330

[3]- https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/c6d3efb164a23d555e30d0f0f7de3de2ef1d08d3/ai_documents/models/documents_document.py#L321

[4]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/2cb2f33c871bf83c74098ada568e167aad24f2a5/addons/base_automation/models/ir_actions_server.py#L17


sentry-7607903354

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124488

**_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#125694
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#121439

From the cart, it is possible to increase the amount ordered of a rental product that synchronizes shifts depending on a specific service

Steps to reproduce:
1. Install website_sale_renting_planning module
2. Go to Rental > Products and create a new product "test" with Sales enabled, Product Type "Service", Plan Services enabled as "Developer", in the Sales tab, enable Is Published and in the Rental prices tab, create a pricing for Daily period
3. In the General Information tab, click on the internal link to "Developer"
4. Enable Sync Shifts and Rental Orders
5. Go to the eCommerce website and search for product "test"
6. Add as much product "test" to the cart as possible (the quantity is limited)
7. Open the cart
8. You can increase the amount of the product regardless of its availability

Issue:
We don't check the renting availabilities to limit the maximum quantity of the product

Solution:
Check that the new quantity of the product is available in `_verify_updated_quantity` for the specified dates. We also need to check the availability of the product when we modify the rental dates

opw-6274035

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#125783
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123056

Currently, an error occurs when processing Ecuadorian EDI invoices that
use taxes from the `Special Consumptions (ICE)` tax group.

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install `l10n_ec_edi` and switch to an EC Company.
- Create a new tax with the `Tax Group` set to `Special Consumptions (ICE)`.
- Create an invoice using this tax.
- Confirm the invoice and click `Process Now`.

**Error:**
```
  File "/home/odoo/odoo/enterprise/saas-18.4/l10n_ec_edi/models/account_edi_format.py", line 373, in _l10n_ec_get_base_lines
    code_percentage = L10N_EC_VAT_SUBTAXES[tax_data['tax'].tax_group_id.l10n_ec_type]
KeyError: 'ice'
```

**Root Cause:**
At [1], non-VAT tax groups such as `ICE` are explicitly not supported
and are not included in `L10N_EC_VAT_SUBTAXES`.

At [2], the code assumes that every Ecuadorian tax group exists in
`L10N_EC_VAT_SUBTAXES` and directly indexes the mapping using
`tax_group_id.l10n_ec_type`. When an invoice uses an `ICE`
tax, causing an error.

**Fix:**
This commit prevents errors by using the tax's `Code ATS` as the
`codigoPorcentaje` value and the tax's `amount` as the `tarifa` in
the XML when the tax group is not present in `L10N_EC_VAT_SUBTAXES`.
(Confirm with the PO [here], just to fix it from 18.4, that the problem is 
that it is not working on the versions where we already introduced the feature.)

[1]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/a388b9298268eead53ffa9d33bff7e1927dae33c/l10n_ec_edi/models/account_move.py#L17-L38

[2]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/a388b9298268eead53ffa9d33bff7e1927dae33c/l10n_ec_edi/models/account_edi_format.py#L372-L377

[here]:
https://www.odoo.com/mail/message/1121493378

opw-6373984
opw-6430589
opw-6423812

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123918

[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#123673
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119404

Currently, an error occurs when a user uploads a document.

**Steps to Reproduce:**
 - Install the `ai_documents` module.
 - Go to `Documents` and create a `folder`, or use an `existing one`.
 - Open the `folder` > click `Actions` > `Auto-sort`, and `save`.
 - Uninstall the `ai_documents` module.
 - Go back to `Documents`, open the `same folder`, and `upload any document`.
 - Error is logged in the `terminal`.

`ValueError: Invalid field documents.document.ai_sortable in condition ('ai_sortable', '=', True)`

When the ai_documents module is installed and the user enables Auto-sort for a folder [1], an 
automation rule and its linked server action are created [2] (if they do not already exist). 
Whenever a document is uploaded to that folder, the automation rule triggers the server action, 
which runs the AI prompt to classify and sort the document.
However, when the ai_documents module is uninstalled, the related automation rule and server 
action are not removed. As a result, uploading a document to the same folder still triggers the 
automation rule. While evaluating its domain, it attempts to access the ai_sortable field, which 
no longer exists because it is defined by the ai_documents module, raise the error [3].

This commit ensures that uninstalling the ai_documents module removes the related automation 
rules. The linked server actions are then deleted automatically through the field's ondelete='cascade' [4].

[1]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/c6d3efb164a23d555e30d0f0f7de3de2ef1d08d3/ai_documents/wizard/ai_documents_sort.py#L100

[2]- https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/c6d3efb164a23d555e30d0f0f7de3de2ef1d08d3/ai_documents/models/documents_document.py#L313-L330

[3]- https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/c6d3efb164a23d555e30d0f0f7de3de2ef1d08d3/ai_documents/models/documents_document.py#L321

[4]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/2cb2f33c871bf83c74098ada568e167aad24f2a5/addons/base_automation/models/ir_actions_server.py#L17


sentry-7607903354

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124488

Currently, an error occurs when processing Ecuadorian EDI invoices that
use taxes from the `Special Consumptions (ICE)` tax group.

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install `l10n_ec_edi` and switch to an EC Company.
- Create a new tax with the `Tax Group` set to `Special Consumptions (ICE)`.
- Create an invoice using this tax.
- Confirm the invoice and click `Process Now`.

**Error:**
```
  File "/home/odoo/odoo/enterprise/saas-18.4/l10n_ec_edi/models/account_edi_format.py", line 373, in _l10n_ec_get_base_lines
    code_percentage = L10N_EC_VAT_SUBTAXES[tax_data['tax'].tax_group_id.l10n_ec_type]
KeyError: 'ice'
```

**Root Cause:**
At [1], non-VAT tax groups such as `ICE` are explicitly not supported
and are not included in `L10N_EC_VAT_SUBTAXES`.

At [2], the code assumes that every Ecuadorian tax group exists in
`L10N_EC_VAT_SUBTAXES` and directly indexes the mapping using
`tax_group_id.l10n_ec_type`. When an invoice uses an `ICE`
tax, causing an error.

**Fix:**
This commit prevents errors by using the tax's `Code ATS` as the
`codigoPorcentaje` value and the tax's `amount` as the `tarifa` in
the XML when the tax group is not present in `L10N_EC_VAT_SUBTAXES`.
(Confirm with the PO [here], just to fix it from 18.4, that the problem is 
that it is not working on the versions where we already introduced the feature.)

[1]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/a388b9298268eead53ffa9d33bff7e1927dae33c/l10n_ec_edi/models/account_move.py#L17-L38

[2]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/a388b9298268eead53ffa9d33bff7e1927dae33c/l10n_ec_edi/models/account_edi_format.py#L372-L377

[here]:
https://www.odoo.com/mail/message/1121493378

opw-6373984
opw-6430589
opw-6423812

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123918

**_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#125694
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#121439

### Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses

Sending the **Partner Ledger** report by email in a multi-currency setup (several companies using different currencies) crashes the send wizard on opening with:

```
psycopg2.errors.UndefinedTable: relation "account_currency_table" does not exist
```

### Current behavior before PR

To compute the recipients, `AccountPartnerLedgerReportHandler._get_report_send_recipients` runs `_get_query_sums`, whose SQL joins the currency table. In a multi-currency setup that table is a **temporary** table that must be created beforehand by `AccountReport._init_currency_table`.

Every regular rendering entry point calls `_init_currency_table` before running currency-table queries, but the report-sending path does not, so the query fails on a missing `account_currency_table` relation.

### Desired behavior after PR is merged

`_init_currency_table(options)` is called before running the query, so the temporary table exists. It is a no-op in mono-currency setups (early return in `_init_currency_table`), so mono-currency behavior is unchanged.

### Steps to reproduce

1. Have several companies using different currencies.
2. Select more than one of them in the company switcher.
3. Open **Accounting > Reporting > Partner Ledger**.
4. Click **Send by email** → the wizard crashes on opening.

Video: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1skpg7YDtxcY1PCtURyzk5PdFPi7ZPreG/view

A regression test covering the multi-currency send-recipients path is included in `test_partner_ledger_report.py`.
I've created the task #6362131 for this issue

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#122897

Currently, an error occurs when processing Ecuadorian EDI invoices that
use taxes from the `Special Consumptions (ICE)` tax group.

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install `l10n_ec_edi` and switch to an EC Company.
- Create a new tax with the `Tax Group` set to `Special Consumptions (ICE)`.
- Create an invoice using this tax.
- Confirm the invoice and click `Process Now`.

**Error:**
```
  File "/home/odoo/odoo/enterprise/saas-18.4/l10n_ec_edi/models/account_edi_format.py", line 373, in _l10n_ec_get_base_lines
    code_percentage = L10N_EC_VAT_SUBTAXES[tax_data['tax'].tax_group_id.l10n_ec_type]
KeyError: 'ice'
```

**Root Cause:**
At [1], non-VAT tax groups such as `ICE` are explicitly not supported
and are not included in `L10N_EC_VAT_SUBTAXES`.

At [2], the code assumes that every Ecuadorian tax group exists in
`L10N_EC_VAT_SUBTAXES` and directly indexes the mapping using
`tax_group_id.l10n_ec_type`. When an invoice uses an `ICE`
tax, causing an error.

**Fix:**
This commit prevents errors by using the tax's `Code ATS` as the
`codigoPorcentaje` value and the tax's `amount` as the `tarifa` in
the XML when the tax group is not present in `L10N_EC_VAT_SUBTAXES`.
(Confirm with the PO [here], just to fix it from 18.4, that the problem is 
that it is not working on the versions where we already introduced the feature.)

[1]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/a388b9298268eead53ffa9d33bff7e1927dae33c/l10n_ec_edi/models/account_move.py#L17-L38

[2]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/a388b9298268eead53ffa9d33bff7e1927dae33c/l10n_ec_edi/models/account_edi_format.py#L372-L377

[here]:
https://www.odoo.com/mail/message/1121493378

opw-6373984
opw-6430589
opw-6423812

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#125909
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120595

# 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#125791
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123263

**_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#125694
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#121439

**Issue**
Changing the `partner_id` of an outgoing rental transfer could reset its destination location to the partner customer location instead of the rental location.

**Steps to reproduce**
- Enable Rental Transfers from Rental Configuration.
- Create a Sales Order for a rental product.
- Open the related delivery transfer.
- Using Studio, make the Destination Location field visible. -> Current destination location is: Partner/Customer/Rental
- Change the delivery address -> The destination location become: Partner/Customer

**Cause**
Changing the delivery address (i.e: the partner_id) triggers `_compute_location_id`: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/85372b625a80ab50fe2d8a6bce49a890b2bf1665/addons/stock/models/stock_picking.py#L949-L950 
Since commit https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/8c90fc1fd336ee872fd67d8d72473e4f6c55b2e0, not only draft picking are recomputed. As a result, `location_dest_id` is set as `picking.partner_id.property_stock_customer` https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/85372b625a80ab50fe2d8a6bce49a890b2bf1665/addons/stock/models/stock_picking.py#L959-L961 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/85372b625a80ab50fe2d8a6bce49a890b2bf1665/addons/stock/models/stock_picking.py#L963 
Regardless whether we are in rental setup

opw-6237495

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123564

**Issue**
Changing the `partner_id` of an outgoing rental transfer could reset its destination location to the partner customer location instead of the rental location.

**Steps to reproduce**
- Enable Rental Transfers from Rental Configuration.
- Create a Sales Order for a rental product.
- Open the related delivery transfer.
- Using Studio, make the Destination Location field visible. -> Current destination location is: Partner/Customer/Rental
- Change the delivery address -> The destination location become: Partner/Customer

**Cause**
Changing the delivery address (i.e: the partner_id) triggers `_compute_location_id`: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/85372b625a80ab50fe2d8a6bce49a890b2bf1665/addons/stock/models/stock_picking.py#L949-L950 
Since commit https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/8c90fc1fd336ee872fd67d8d72473e4f6c55b2e0, not only draft picking are recomputed. As a result, `location_dest_id` is set as `picking.partner_id.property_stock_customer` https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/85372b625a80ab50fe2d8a6bce49a890b2bf1665/addons/stock/models/stock_picking.py#L959-L961 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/85372b625a80ab50fe2d8a6bce49a890b2bf1665/addons/stock/models/stock_picking.py#L963 
Regardless whether we are in rental setup

opw-6237495

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123564

Steps to reproduce:
- set the company currency to XCG
- set the PoS sales journal currency and the PoS pricelist currency to USD
- configure a XCG <-> USD rate
- create a customer without any outstanding balance
- open the PoS, create an order of USD 100 and validate it with the Customer Account (Pay Later) payment method
- open the Customers screen and look at the Total Due of that customer

Issue:
The Total Due shows about USD 55.56, i.e. the amount converted once too many, instead of the expected USD 100.

Cause:
get_total_due() sums two amounts that are not expressed in the same currency before converting them. partner.total_due comes from the accounting entries, it is the sum of account.move.line.amount_residual and is therefore in company currency, while total_settled is the sum of pos.payment.amount of the still open sessions, which is in the currency of the order, so the PoS one. The addition is done first and the result is then converted from the company currency to the PoS one, so the pay later payments end up converted a second time.

opw-6403320

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#125798

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

Currently, an error occurs when a user uploads a document.

**Steps to Reproduce:**
 - Install the `ai_documents` module.
 - Go to `Documents` and create a `folder`, or use an `existing one`.
 - Open the `folder` > click `Actions` > `Auto-sort`, and `save`.
 - Uninstall the `ai_documents` module.
 - Go back to `Documents`, open the `same folder`, and `upload any document`.
 - Error is logged in the `terminal`.

`ValueError: Invalid field documents.document.ai_sortable in condition ('ai_sortable', '=', True)`

When the ai_documents module is installed and the user enables Auto-sort for a folder [1], an 
automation rule and its linked server action are created [2] (if they do not already exist). 
Whenever a document is uploaded to that folder, the automation rule triggers the server action, 
which runs the AI prompt to classify and sort the document.
However, when the ai_documents module is uninstalled, the related automation rule and server 
action are not removed. As a result, uploading a document to the same folder still triggers the 
automation rule. While evaluating its domain, it attempts to access the ai_sortable field, which 
no longer exists because it is defined by the ai_documents module, raise the error [3].

This commit ensures that uninstalling the ai_documents module removes the related automation 
rules. The linked server actions are then deleted automatically through the field's ondelete='cascade' [4].

[1]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/c6d3efb164a23d555e30d0f0f7de3de2ef1d08d3/ai_documents/wizard/ai_documents_sort.py#L100

[2]- https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/c6d3efb164a23d555e30d0f0f7de3de2ef1d08d3/ai_documents/models/documents_document.py#L313-L330

[3]- https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/c6d3efb164a23d555e30d0f0f7de3de2ef1d08d3/ai_documents/models/documents_document.py#L321

[4]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/2cb2f33c871bf83c74098ada568e167aad24f2a5/addons/base_automation/models/ir_actions_server.py#L17


sentry-7607903354

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124488

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#125853
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120279

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/enterprise#125893
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124686

Issue
-----
When making an international delivery to a partner with different invoice and delivery addresses, we send the delivery address as the `Sold To` address as well.

Problematic case 1
-----
- Create a belgian company
- Setup UPS
- Create a French customer
	- Add a different french delivery address
- Create a product (with some weight)
- Create a SO (with UPS delivery) to the customer & confirm
- Validate the transfer

> Commercial invoice `Sold To` uses the delivery address

Solution for case 1
-----
Use the delivery address' `commercial_partner_id`. This leads to another issue in some edge cases...

Problematic case 2 (caused by case 1 fix)
-----
- Create a belgian company
- Setup UPS
- Create a French customer
	- Add a delivery address in Switzerland
- Create a product (with some weight)
- Create a SO (with UPS delivery) to the customer & confirm
- Validate the transfer

> UPS error `The Sold To party's country code must be the same as the Ship To party's country code with the exception of Canada and satellite countries.`

Solution for case 2
-----
Default back to delivery address for the `Sold To` field when countries don't match, as this is a limitation of the UPS API. Warn the user, either on the SO or the transfer itself (if no SO).

Warning looks like this (on SO):
<img width="1914" height="716" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/f7aa73c4-f24c-42da-8f3e-6a58765ef020" />

-----
Ticket:
opw-6200263

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123163
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118031

**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#125738
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123009

Resizing a work order from the right edge in the Gantt view updated only the stop date (`date_finished`). Since the work order Gantt view defines dependencies, this triggered dependency propagation through `web_gantt_reschedule`. During that flow, `_web_gantt_move_candidates` needed both the old start and stop dates to update dependent work orders,
but the old-value snapshot only contained fields present in `vals`. As a result, `date_start` was missing and the resize crashed with a `KeyError: 'date_start'`.

Handle the missing old start date in the generic Gantt dependency propagation flow. When only the stop date is changed, the old start date is added to the old-value snapshot without adding it to the actual write values. This keeps the right-edge resize payload unchanged while giving dependency propagation the values it needs.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Create a manufacturing order with work orders.
2. Plan the manufacturing order.
3. Open the Work Order Gantt view.
4. Resize a work order from the right edge to change its planned end date.

Before this commit:
Right-edge resizing a work order with dependencies crashed during dependency propagation with `KeyError: 'date_start'`.

After this commit:
Right-edge resizing keeps the changed `date_finished`, dependency propagation has access to the old `date_start`, and dependent work orders are rescheduled without crashing.

task-6345347

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#122288

A previous PR (https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/120063) introduced the new display_on_dmfa field for warnings to be displayed on the DMFA form view. This was initially done because we were anticipating the possibility of having warnings that should be displayed on both DMFA and single models. However, the new direction is that we should only expect warnings to be displayed on DMFA and dashboard or model and dashboard so we can instead use the display_on_model field and set model_id to l10n_be.dmfa.

Going forward, the idea is that warnings that have display_on_model set, should work on a recordset of model_id records. This was already what the DMFA warnings were doing by supposing self to be a dmfa record, but this is not the case for many other warnings. To avoid breaking everything, we leave self in the localdict as a reference to the warning record and we add a new value 'record' which will be a recordset of the model defined in model_id. To keep the DMFA warnings working, we substitute self with record in the computation.

Also, we remove the default from model_id because, since now the field is always visible, it creates confusion to have it set at hr.employee.

Furthermore we take away the possibility of creating new models from the dropdown of the model_id field and we eliminate a constraint on the model of the warning_records, which is only constraining our ability to write warnings without any real upside.

Task: 6429645

## 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#125859
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#125354

[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#123673
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119404

## 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

**Step To Reproduce:**

1. Configure a POS with German Fiskaly (l10n_de_pos_cert), Restaurant, and Kitchen Display (pos_preparation_display).
2. Create a new order in the POS and add the first product.
3. Observe that the order does not appear on the Kitchen Display.
4. Add a second product to the same order.
5. Observe that the order now appears on the Kitchen Display.

**Issue:**

The first product of a new restaurant order is not synchronised with the Kitchen Display when the German Fiskaly localisation is enabled.

**Reason:**

`syncAllOrders()` only processes orders returned by `getPendingOrder()` and ignores orders explicitly passed through `options.orders`. After the initial Fiskaly synchronisation, the order is serialised and removed from the pending queue. Consequently, the Preparation Display synchronisation receives no orders from `getPendingOrder()`, preventing the order from reaching the backend.

**Solution:**

Update `syncAllOrders()` to prioritize the orders explicitly provided through `options.orders`. When `options.orders` is not available, fall back to the existing behavior by synchronizing the orders from `orderToCreate` and `orderToUpdate`.

opw-6321376

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#125772
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124826

**_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#125694
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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#125791
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123263

Currently, an error occurs when processing Ecuadorian EDI invoices that
use taxes from the `Special Consumptions (ICE)` tax group.

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install `l10n_ec_edi` and switch to an EC Company.
- Create a new tax with the `Tax Group` set to `Special Consumptions (ICE)`.
- Create an invoice using this tax.
- Confirm the invoice and click `Process Now`.

**Error:**
```
  File "/home/odoo/odoo/enterprise/saas-18.4/l10n_ec_edi/models/account_edi_format.py", line 373, in _l10n_ec_get_base_lines
    code_percentage = L10N_EC_VAT_SUBTAXES[tax_data['tax'].tax_group_id.l10n_ec_type]
KeyError: 'ice'
```

**Root Cause:**
At [1], non-VAT tax groups such as `ICE` are explicitly not supported
and are not included in `L10N_EC_VAT_SUBTAXES`.

At [2], the code assumes that every Ecuadorian tax group exists in
`L10N_EC_VAT_SUBTAXES` and directly indexes the mapping using
`tax_group_id.l10n_ec_type`. When an invoice uses an `ICE`
tax, causing an error.

**Fix:**
This commit prevents errors by using the tax's `Code ATS` as the
`codigoPorcentaje` value and the tax's `amount` as the `tarifa` in
the XML when the tax group is not present in `L10N_EC_VAT_SUBTAXES`.
(Confirm with the PO [here], just to fix it from 18.4, that the problem is 
that it is not working on the versions where we already introduced the feature.)

[1]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/a388b9298268eead53ffa9d33bff7e1927dae33c/l10n_ec_edi/models/account_move.py#L17-L38

[2]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/a388b9298268eead53ffa9d33bff7e1927dae33c/l10n_ec_edi/models/account_edi_format.py#L372-L377

[here]:
https://www.odoo.com/mail/message/1121493378

opw-6373984
opw-6430589
opw-6423812

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123918

**Issue**
Changing the `partner_id` of an outgoing rental transfer could reset its destination location to the partner customer location instead of the rental location.

**Steps to reproduce**
- Enable Rental Transfers from Rental Configuration.
- Create a Sales Order for a rental product.
- Open the related delivery transfer.
- Using Studio, make the Destination Location field visible. -> Current destination location is: Partner/Customer/Rental
- Change the delivery address -> The destination location become: Partner/Customer

**Cause**
Changing the delivery address (i.e: the partner_id) triggers `_compute_location_id`: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/85372b625a80ab50fe2d8a6bce49a890b2bf1665/addons/stock/models/stock_picking.py#L949-L950 
Since commit https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/8c90fc1fd336ee872fd67d8d72473e4f6c55b2e0, not only draft picking are recomputed. As a result, `location_dest_id` is set as `picking.partner_id.property_stock_customer` https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/85372b625a80ab50fe2d8a6bce49a890b2bf1665/addons/stock/models/stock_picking.py#L959-L961 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/85372b625a80ab50fe2d8a6bce49a890b2bf1665/addons/stock/models/stock_picking.py#L963 
Regardless whether we are in rental setup

opw-6237495

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123564

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install the `l10n_pl_reports` module and switch to a `PL Company`.
- Create and confirm a vendor bill with a `Bill Reference` and `Taxes`.
- Navigate to Accounting > Reporting > Tax Report and select `This Month`.
- From the dropdown, click `JPK` > `Export XML`.
- Open the generated XML file and observe the `DowodZakupu` field.

**Observation:**
`DowodZakupu` contains the vendor `Bill Number` even 
when a `Bill Reference` is set.

**Root Cause:**
At [1], `DowodZakupu` is populated only with the vendor `Bill number`(`move_name`) 
instead of using the `Bill reference`(`ref`) when available.

**Fix:**
This commit ensures `DowodZakupu` contains the `Bill Reference`
when it is available in JPK exports.

**Reference:**
https://www.podatki.gov.pl/media/eqrn3dey/broszura-jpk_vat-z-deklaracj%C4%85-od-1-lutego-2026-r-en.pdf (page 41)

[1]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/4b0404058b280136f6865090562f95e18d4d7e0b/l10n_pl_reports/data/jpk_export_templates.xml#L208

opw-6299827

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#121117

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Create a partner (vendor or customer) with multiple bills/invoices, respectively.
2. Fully pay one or more, leaving at least one for the same partner still open.
3. Open Accounting > Reporting > Partner Reports > Aged Payable/Receivable.
4. Click into the total aging bucket cell for that partner.

Issue: 
The drill-down list shows bills/invoices that are already fully settled (`amount_residual = 0.00`) alongside those that are genuinely outstanding. Affects both Aged Payable and Aged Receivable, since both share the same underlying method. Only appears when the partner has at least one open balance; if everything is paid, there's no bucket to drill into, so the bug doesn't surface.

Root Cause: 
Bucket totals (`_aged_partner_report_custom_engine_common`) correctly recalculate each line's residual from
`account_partial_reconcile` and exclude zero-residual lines via a `HAVING` clause. The drill-down list, however, is built separately by `aged_partner_balance_audit`, whose domain only filters by reconcile flag, journal type, and date range - it never checks amount_residual, so every line in that window gets listed regardless of payment status.

Fix: 
Added (`'amount_residual', '!=', 0`) to the domain in aged_partner_balance_audit. Since this method is shared by both reports (differentiated only by `journal_type`), one fix covers both.

Result: 
Both drill-downs now correctly exclude settled bills, invoices, payments, and write-offs, showing only genuinely outstanding items.

opw : 6333699

Issue Before This Commit:
----------------------------------
In a single-company environment, the quality team email alias was created
without a company ID. As a result, incoming emails could not generate quality
tickets, making the email alias ineffective.

Steps to produce:
----------------------------------
- Install `quality_control` in a single-company environment.
- Create a quality team with a name and an email alias.
- Navigate to Settings → Technical → Aliases and check the newly created alias.
- The Company ID is False, preventing the creation of new tickets via email.

Cause
----------------------------------
In a single-company environment, the company_id field is not visible,
is not required, and has no default value, so it is never set.
The same issue can also occur in a multi-company environment when the user
explicitly creates a team without selecting a company.

After this Commit:
----------------------------------
The company_id is now set in the alias default values based on the quality
team’s company. It is also updated whenever the team’s company changes,
ensuring consistency and allowing incoming emails to reliably create quality
tickets in all environments.

Task ID: 4595798