Steps to reproduce:-
- Open any report.
- Click on a particular line to unfold more than once very fast(or throttle network to 3G)
- Once line is unfolded click again to fold that line.
- Line is not folding.

Cause:-
- When we clicked multiple times to unfold line, duplicate child lines were created(as many times as many times we clicked).
- Because when first promise was not resolved so `unfolded = false` and we clicked again so new promise also tries to unfold  the same line, resulting in unfolding the same line multiple times.
- In version 17.0 these duplicate child lines are created but somehow not visible but it breaks `foldLine`. From version 18.0 onwards these duplicate child lines are visible.

Solution: In `unfoldLine` set the flag `unfolding`. So in all clicks other than first, we get `unfolding = true` and don't proceed further, preventing unfolding the same line multiple times.

task-6260425

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#126504
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120392

Problem:
When scanning the first product, the second move line is clicked immediately after. https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/bfb8bab7636a84c829f16087771e00bf31ad2cce/stock_barcode_picking_batch/static/tests/tours/tour_test_barcode_batch_flows.js#L1529-L1541 If this happens before the first scan has finished, its quantity is incorrectly applied to the second move line that is clicked. This causes a 0 - 3 split instead of a 1 - 2 split, which results in there only being 6 move lines instead of 7.

We updated our quantity on the `currentLine`
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/bfb8bab7636a84c829f16087771e00bf31ad2cce/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L1478

When finding `currentLine`, we go through `_findLine` and use `this.selectedLineVirtualId`, which is the one that is currently selected in the UI https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/bfb8bab7636a84c829f16087771e00bf31ad2cce/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L1705-L1712

Purpose:
By adding this step, we wait until the first line’s quantity to be updated before it moves on and clicks on the second product.

runbot-941211

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124162

## Issue
When generating an invoice for a service product with an invoicing policy based on timesheets, the amount of hours invoiced is wrong if there exists a credit note linked to that SO.

## Steps to reproduce
1. Install *Sales Timesheet* (`sale_timesheet`)
2. Create a Product P
    - Product Type: Service
    - Create on Order: Task
    - Project: Any project
    - Invoicing Policy: Based on Timesheets
3. Create a SO
    - Any Customer
    - Product P (any quantity)
    - Confirm the SO
4. In the created task, add a timesheet entry
    - Date: Today
    - Time Spent: 10:00 (10 hours)
5. Create and confirm the invoice for the SO
6. Create a Credit Note from the invoice, set the quantity to 4 hours, and confirm it
7. From the created task, add a second timesheet entry
    - Date: Any future date (e.g., today + 7)
    - Time Spent: 15:00 (15 hours)
8. Create a second invoice, but set a Timesheets Period that only covers the second timesheet entry
9. **The quantity on the newly created invoice is 9 hours, even though we're clearly trying to invoice the 15 hours from the second timesheet entry.**

## Cause
The second invoice is impacted by the credit note generated from the first one. When generating that second invoice, the [`_recompute_qty_to_invoice`](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0512ebd4c8cc277fdb4fbe0f57619a0bd61192c2/addons/sale_timesheet/models/sale_order_line.py#L149) method incorrectly computes the amount to invoice by taking into account `account.analytic.line` from outside the provided range.

The delivered quantity is correctly calculated by taking into account the provided range (through the `start_date` and `end_date` added to the domain passed to `_get_delivered_quantity_by_analytic`:

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0512ebd4c8cc277fdb4fbe0f57619a0bd61192c2/addons/sale_timesheet/models/sale_order_line.py#L176-L180

But then, for each `sale.order.line`, we look at the related `account.analytic.line` without taking into account the provided dates, which leads to lines outside of the range impacting the invoice.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0512ebd4c8cc277fdb4fbe0f57619a0bd61192c2/addons/sale_timesheet/models/sale_order_line.py#L182-L193

In the example described in the *Steps to reproduce*, we start with a (correct) amount delivered of 15.0, we find two `invoice_lines_to_calculate` (the invoice of 10 hours, and the credit note of 4 hours), which leads to the quantity to invoice being set to `15 - (-4 + 10) = 9`. This seems like an odd behavior as it:
- doesn't invoice all the hours within the provided range (15 hours within the range, and we're only invoicing 9)
- doesn't invoice **all** the hours left to be invoiced (6 hours are already invoiced, 25 should be in total, and we're invoicing 9)

opw-6373870

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277727

Steps to reproduce:
- Install 'Sales', 'Accounting' and 'l10n_sa_edi'
- Settings > Accounting > Rounding Method > Round Globally
- Create an invoice whose per-line tax base is fractional (e.g. a price-included 15% VAT, 3 lines at 10.00 -> base 8.6957 each)
- Generate the ZATCA UBL document

Issue:
The exported document is internally inconsistent and is rejected by ZATCA (BR-CO-13): cbc:LineExtensionAmount (BT-106) = 26.10 while cbc:TaxExclusiveAmount (BT-109), and thus the QR / PayableAmount (BT-115), = 26.09. This is the same 0.01 discrepancy reported for 100% down-payment invoices under global rounding.

Cause:
LineExtensionAmount was built by summing account.move.line.price_subtotal, which is always rounded per line (8.70 x 3 = 26.10), whereas TaxExclusiveAmount is built from the aggregated base_amount_currency, which follows the company rounding method and is rounded globally (26.087 -> 26.09). Under 'round_globally' the two diverge by a cent.

This is the base-amount counterpart of commit 3d398789, which aligned the prepaid tax amount to global rounding but left the line net amount on per-line rounding.

Solution:
Derive the line net amount from the globally-rounded aggregated base (taxes_vals['base_amount_currency'])
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/c7c361e6af4da43dc1f9653703067ffe6500a046/addons/account/models/account_tax.py#L1529 instead of the per-line rounded
price_subtotal, consistent with total_amount_sa on the same line. The whole document now stays on a single rounding basis, so the sum of the line net amounts equals the TaxExclusiveAmount and BR-CO-13 is satisfied.

opw-5881564

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275093

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
1. Install `hr` module
2. Create two employees (e.g., emp1 and emp2) and assign
   emp1 as the manager of emp2
   → emp2 is now a direct subordinate of emp1
3. In the employee list view, apply the custom filter
   "Direct subordinates is set" (child_ids != False)
   → emp1 appears in the results as expected
4. Archive emp2
5. Apply the same filter again
   → emp1 still appears in the results even though it has
   no active subordinates

Issue:
------
When an employee (e.g., `emp2`) is archived, their manager (`emp1`) should no longer appear in the "Direct subordinates is set" (child_ids != False) filter — since `emp1` no longer has any active subordinates.

However, `emp1` still appears in the search results after `emp2` is archived, because the underlying EXISTS subquery checks all subordinates regardless of their active state.

Cause:
--------
Before this commit 5ef007a, `osv.expression`, filtering on a One2many field would automatically
search against [active co-records ](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5f65e92d7fa341193df53f5aba1620b596f9a1ec/odoo/osv/expression.py#L1260-L1265)only by default.

After that commit, the `condition_to_sql` method in `_RelationalMulti` constructs the comodel with [active_test=False](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/463ca4cf867812890c17d1e1abf7640b04f70ad0/odoo/orm/fields_relational.py#L672-L686) when resolving relational field conditions. This causes the EXISTS subquery generated for `child_ids != False` to compare against all subordinates. (including archived ones rather than active ones only).

Solution:
---------
Added a callable `domain` attribute on the `child_ids` field definition so that only active subordinates are considered by default. This ensures [get_comodel_domain()](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/2d8b24a791b6fe6bb214c32d4fb58b3d46eca70b/odoo/orm/fields_relational.py#L75-L85) returns a server-side domain that filters out archived subordinates, making the `child_ids != False` filter behave as expected.

**NOTE:**
> The ORM uses the **active_test** flag when doing searches. Having in [1, 2, 3] in domains bypasses the search method because we suppose that we already searched to find these ids.
For hierarchical resolution, we bypass rights and active_test.
The result is that inactive records are considered in the result.

confirmed with the framework team, and it is intended behaviour.
However, this is not the expected behaviour for the direct subordinates case in `hr`.
The fix is therefore applied at the field level by explicitly declaring
a domain on `child_ids` to filter out archived subordinates.

ORM commit: https://github.com/odoo-dev/odoo/commit/12eae5c85fa7facb299f0f1bf1fdd62e3ff82aa5



opw-6193104



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

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Install Accounting and l10n_be and switch to the Belgian company
2. In the settings, set the discount account (`708000`) on Customer Invoices under "Default Accounts" and enable analytic accounting
3. Go to [Accounting -> Configuration -> Analytic Accounts] and create 4 new accounts with "Project" plan (i.e 1,2,3,4)
4. Create a new invoice with two lines, each having 2 of the analytic accounts with 50% each.
5. Set the price to 1000 and a 10% discount for each line then save.
6. Edit the second line and set the discount to 20%.
7. Open the Journal Items tab

**Issue:**
 - When an invoice contains multiple lines with analytic distributions, changing the discount percentage on any line other than the first fails to correctly update the analytic distribution percentages on the corresponding discount journal items.
- The analytic account distribution splits the percentage evenly across both accounts event if they are not split 50/50

**Why this happens:**
- This occurred because `_compute_discount_allocation_needed` iterated over `self` to populate target changes. When only one line was modified, `self` contains that line only which is correctly updated with the new analytic distribution. Later in the execution in `_sync_dynamic_line`, particularly in https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5a14360705a55f4d91edf39c936d7a5d8573044b/addons/account/models/account_move.py#L2263-L2274 The first line in `computed_needed` is what gets set in res, and subsequent lines only modify the field if it's monetary. So if the second invoice line is the one  updated, it will never override the `analytic_distribution` with the updated values, leaving stale values in that field.
- The code iterated directly over `line.analytic_distribution` dictionary keys (the account IDs) rather than its `.items()`. This caused it to ignore the individual percentage value splits (e.g. 60/40), accumulating the un-weighted full discount amount to each account ID. https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5a14360705a55f4d91edf39c936d7a5d8573044b/addons/account/models/account_move_line.py#L1044-L1052

**Fix:**
- Change the processing loop  inside `_compute_discount_allocation_needed` from `self` to `self.move_id.line_ids` to calculate the correct `analytic_distribution` across all records.
- Applying the factored weight ratio (`amount * (percentage / 100.0)`) to `distribution_totals`

opw-6362084

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#279977
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275070