### Issue:
When an invoice has a down payment on a line with a withholding tax, the `PrepaidPayment/PaidAmount` in the UBL XML included the withholding tax amount, causing a mismatch with `LegalMonetaryTotal/PrepaidAmount` which correctly excludes it

### Cause:
`PrepaidPayment/PaidAmount` was set directly from `prepayment_move.amount_total`, which includes all taxes `LegalMonetaryTotal/PrepaidAmount` uses `_aggregate_base_line_tax_details` to exclude withholding taxes, but this was not applied to the `PrepaidPayment` node

### Fix:
Using `prepayment_move.amount_total` directly includes all taxes and does not match the rounding logic of `LegalMonetaryTotal`

Instead, `_aggregate_base_line_tax_details` is used with the same `total_grouping_function` as `LegalMonetaryTotal`, ensuring both nodes use the same rounding logic and exclude withholding taxes

Reversed down payment moves are also excluded from `AdditionalDocumentReference` to avoid referencing cancelled invoices

### Steps to reproduce:
- Install `l10n_pe_edi` and `sale_management` with demo data
- Switch to the PE company
- Create and confirm a Sale Order (Customer: PE Company, Product: Any, Unit Price: 200, Taxes: VAT 18% and 3% IGV Withholding)
- Create, confirm and pay a Down Payment Invoice (Fixed: 28.92)
- Go back to the SO and create the Regular Invoice
- Confirm it and click Process Now
- Open the EDI Document tab and download the XML

Before the fix, the sum of `PrepaidPayment/PaidAmount` did not match `LegalMonetaryTotal/PrepaidAmount`

opw-6273903

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#121733

### This is a revision of #119399 which had to be reverted.

Original issue
-----
Deliveries cannot be validated using DPD with Sendcloud, users get an error.

Steps to reproduce
-----
- Set up Sendcloud DPD
- Create a SO
	- Interntional customer
		- Some VAT number
	- Some product
	- Add sendcloud delivery
- Confirm SO
- Validate the linked picking

> Error: “The receiver VAT number is missing; please provide it to continue”

Issue's cause
-----
Tax numbers should be included in the `customs_information` field of the request as per the API

https://sendcloud.dev/api/v2/parcels/create-a-parcel-or-parcels#body-one-of-0-parcel-customs-information-tax-numbers

For the `vat_label` field, we have to force the language to English in the context because the field is translated by default, but sendcloud only accepts the english names (eg French "TVA" is not accepted, expected value is "VAT").

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/d1d1610332a1596d026fb0a42ec236d1a79c71cc/odoo/addons/base/models/res_country.py#L75

Revert cause
-----
The vat_label field is marked for translation (translate=True)

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/d1d1610332a1596d026fb0a42ec236d1a79c71cc/odoo/addons/base/models/res_country.py#L75

So if the user has the DB in french for example, we are sending "TVA" instead of "VAT" in the name field.

Other issues
-----
- We need to provide an actual fallback for `customs_invoice_nr`. As it stands, if we create a new delivery it cannot be validated because Sendcloud doesn't accept for the field to be empty.
- Same for `name`, we need to provide an actual fallback.

-----
Ticket:
opw-6250860

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124245

### Issue:
When accessing the Bank Reconciliation view directly via URL or bookmark, auto-matching with reconciliation models may not trigger and the upload button may be visible on synchronized journals

### Cause:
`_action_open_bank_reconciliation_widget` injects two context keys:
- `auto_statement_processing`: triggers auto-reconciliation on statement creation
- `bank_statements_source`: hides the upload button for synchronized journals

When the view is accessed directly, these keys are not present, causing the UI to ignore them

`auto_statement_processing` is now set directly in the user context via `onWillRender`/`onWillDestroy` in `BankRecKanbanController` `bank_statements_source` requires an ORM call to fetch the journal's value and is resolved via `fetchBankStatementsSourceInto` on startup

Notes:
The fix for `bank_statements_source` was added opportunistically while addressing `auto_statement_processing`

Steps to reproduce:
- Install `accountant` with demo data
- Duplicate the Bank Journal and set Bank Feeds to Online Synchronization
- Open the Accounting Dashboard and open the Bank (copy)
- Create a transaction (Label: Test, any amount) and click Add & Close
- In the 3 dots menu, choose Manage Models
- Create a Reconciliation Model (Label contains: Test, Lines: any account, default values)
- Click Automate
- Go back to the Bank Reconciliation page and verify:
 -- The transaction is reconciled automatically
 -- No Upload button is displayed
- Create a new transaction, it should be reconciled automatically
- Copy the URL and open it in a new tab
- Create a new transaction

Before the fix, the transaction is not reconciled and the Upload button is present

opw-6391107

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#126359

purpose:
1- We should have a consistent way to compute `_gantt_unavailability` of employees in time off and attendance. Currently, some cases have inconsistent behavior such as out of contract days, flexible and fully flexibe employees. 2- In time off calendar view, if the employee does not have a contract at all, the current working schedule will appear in the calendar and it will not be greyed out. This is inconsistent with the behavior of the attendance application.

Fix:
1:
- implemented `_get_employee_unavailable_intervals` in employee model to be used in both time off and attendance.
    - more optimized than the old implementation in time off as it calls `_work_intervals_batch` once per calendar instead of calling it for each contract in `_unavailable_intervals_batch`
    - greys out "out of contract" periods
    - for flexible and fully flexible employees, the whole period is considered available except leave periods
- made `_get_calendar_periods` use version date start instead of contract date start and corrected a bug in tz conversion 2:
- made `_get_unusual_days` return True for all the days outside of contracts for the employee instead of not returning anything for them or getting values from the working schedule of the employee (means that they will be greyed out in the callendar view) and added a test for it

task-id: 5473055

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#113253

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#126402
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#125798

Steps to reproduce:

- Create a product with a bom and 2 operations
- Create an MO for 1 unit of that product
- Confirm the MO
- On the bom, delete the second operation and modify the first operation on anything else than the company, name or workcenter
- Go back to the MO, click the "Update Bom" button
> The second operation is not unlinked and the first operation is not
  updated

Cause of the issue:

The `action_update_bom` updates the move raws and operations of the MO via the `_link_bom`:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f66614193cce18f5a3298d03ce7e5f29d54f07e9/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L1214-L1218 For draft MO's all the work of these updates is done via the compute methods and by deleting all the records unrelevant to the new bom: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f66614193cce18f5a3298d03ce7e5f29d54f07e9/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L2603-L2626 And, in that case all the workorders that are not linked to an operation of the bom are expected to be deleted. However, when the MO is not in draft, the update of operations is expected to be performed here: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f66614193cce18f5a3298d03ce7e5f29d54f07e9/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L2647-L2664 However, since the operation of the bom has been deleted, the workorder that is expected to be deleted is not linked to any operation and hence does not satisfy the condition to be deleted:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f66614193cce18f5a3298d03ce7e5f29d54f07e9/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L2663-L2664 Concerning the non update of operations, it happens because the MO's operation are only updated on the three fields: `company_id`, `workcenter_id`, `name`:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/31df5033e31c193b4576ef37dfbc5fc683817bc5/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L2647-L2664 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/31df5033e31c193b4576ef37dfbc5fc683817bc5/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L2628-L2629 However, many other cahnges can and are actually relevant.

Note:

Prior to commit 80e6ed658fb43584bc2fad673ca40d9af6cf0ab6 operations were archived on boms rather than deleted:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/4a5270218fe6fd7d30edb6d684b3340dc7423bab/addons/mrp/views/mrp_routing_views.xml#L53-L55 As such they would still be linked to an operation (but unrelated to the present values of the bom) and hence would fall into the condition of being unlinked from the MO.

Since the bom operations are no longer archived there is no way to determine if an operation used to be linked to a bom and we therefore need to chose between deleting all operations unrelated to the present bom or to keep them all (when the MO has been confirmed).

Community: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/269747

opw-6285878
opw-6261738

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120709

### Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:
This PR fixes an issue in the Sign module where replacing a document breaks the link between a signer and their multiple signature fields, causing Odoo to erroneously generate separate signers for each individual field.

### Current behavior before PR:
When a document with multiple signature fields assigned to the same person is replaced, the _copy_sign_items_to function duplicates the sign.item records. During this duplication process, Odoo duplicates the old responsible_ids, creating copies with new ids. These new copies overwrite the old responsible_ids, ensuring that the newly created sign_items have entirely new responsible_ids. 
Because a shared responsible_id is the primary key Odoo uses to group multiple signature items under a single signer, this change in ID causes the system to lose the grouping. As a result, Odoo treats each copied field as belonging to a completely new, separate signer. 

_Note_:
Because of the limitation mentioned before, any responsible_id that is passed through the copy function, and thereby the copy_data function, is overwritten with new ids. The only work-around then is to update the responsible_id value attached to the new_sign_item after the copy_data function has completed and the new_sign_item has been created. 

### Desired behavior after PR is merged:
The original responsible_id is explicitly carried over and assigned to the newly copied sign.item immediately after the copy operation completes. This ensures the copied signature fields retain their original role IDs and grouping, keeping them correctly assigned to the single original signer.

opw-6354334

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123628