When an order from a closed session is invoiced, a misc reversal move is created to "extract" the order from the session closing entry.

When the PoS config uses a currency different from the company currency, posting that reversal move could fail with "The entry is not balanced.", making it impossible to invoice the order.

Steps to reproduce:
- company in currency A, PoS config in currency B, with a conversion rate producing rounding drift (e.g. 0.4007)
- sell a product of 20.0 B + 15% tax (23.0 B), paid by bank, without invoicing
- close the session
- set a partner on the order and invoice it => UserError: "The entry is not balanced."

Cause: in `_prepare_aml_values_list_per_nature`, the product and tax lines each get their balance converted and rounded individually (20.0 * 0.4007 -> 8.01, 3.0 * 0.4007 -> 1.20), while the payment term line was converted from the payment total, without rounding (23.0 * 0.4007 -> 9.2161). Per-line rounding does not distribute over the sum, so the balances could differ by a few cents (8.01 + 1.20 != 9.22) and the move could not be posted. The closing entry has the balancing-account wizard as an escape valve for such differences; the reversal move had none.

Fix, following what is done for regular invoices (see `account.move._compute_needed_terms`, where the payment term balance is derived from the sum of the already rounded lines):
- round the payment term conversions
- put the conversion residual on the last payment term line so the payment terms exactly counterbalance the other lines, but only when the amounts in currency are balanced, so it can only absorb rounding drift
- include the cash rounding amounts in the accumulated totals
- fix the swapped `amount_currency`/`balance` values when merging two non-split payments on the same receivable account

opw-6375309

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#279874
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275673

Issue:
Every change of the selected order makes the PoS call `pos.config.update_customer_display`, which publishes the order on the bus for the customer display paired with this browser. The device uuid identifying that pairing is only generated when the customer display dialog is opened, so a PoS whose customer display was never opened sends `device_uuid: null` and the server publishes on `UPDATE_CUSTOMER_DISPLAY-null`, a channel nobody can listen to.

Steps to reproduce:
Open a PoS session, never open the customer display, and add a product to an order.

Current behaviour:
An rpc is sent for each change of the order, and each of them ends up as a bus notification that no customer display can ever receive.

Expected behaviour:
Nothing is sent as long as no customer display was ever opened.

Solution:
Skip the rpc while no device uuid exists. A customer display opened in the same browser as the PoS is served by the BroadcastChannel, which is unaffected.

task-6408513

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277687

Steps to reproduce:
- Open any PoS session
- Click on Orders and filter by "Paid" orders
- Select an order and click on "Details"
- Open the "Payments" tab and click on the "View" button of a payment
- Click on the payment method link

Traceback:
OwlError: The following error occurred in onWillStart: "Cannot find key "pos_payment_provider_cards" in the "view_widgets" registry"

Backend views opened from within the PoS UI (order details dialog, drill-down on many2one links, ...) share their arch with the backend, but `point_of_sale._assets_pos` excludes everything under `static/src/backend/`, so widgets defined there (e.g. `pos_payment_provider_cards`, `lna_checklist`,
`point_of_sale_test_epos`) are never registered in the PoS UI. Unlike missing field widgets, which fall back to the default widget with a warning, an unknown `<widget>` node makes the whole view crash since `Widget.parseWidgetNode` reads the registry without a fallback.

Those widgets are backend configuration helpers that are irrelevant in a PoS session, so instead of bundling each of them (and any future one) in the PoS assets, patch `Widget.parseWidgetNode` in the PoS bundle to skip unknown widgets with a warning, like missing field widgets do. This covers the form, list and kanban arch parsers at once.

opw-6382156

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#279823
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276912

*:mrp_subcontracting_purchase

Issue before this commit:
========================
- In inter-warehouse transfers with `multi-step delivery` and in multi-step manufacturing flows, demand moves were not correctly counted in the monthly demand.

- Also, direct transfers to customer and subcontracting locations generated from `orderpoint` were also not counted correctly (when checked before move scheduled on the same day). This resulted in lower monthly demand values than the actual demand and could lead to inaccurate purchase planning.

Steps to Reproduce:
=========================
- Install `purchase_stock` module and enable multi-step routes.
- Set the Outgoing Shipments in the warehouse to 2-step/3-step.
- Create a second warehouse and configure it to `resupply from another warehouse`.
- Create a storable product and assign a vendor.
- Create an orderpoint for the product in the second warehouse, set the route to the warehouse resupply route, and trigger the replenishment.
- Go to Purchase → Create RFQ for the vendor and open the catalog.
Observation:
The replenishment transfer demand is not correctly counted in the monthly demand

Cause of the issue:
=========================
- In [PR](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/244180), the monthly demand move domain was updated to filter out intermediate customer delivery moves using `move_dest_ids.origin_returned_move_id`. However, inter-warehouse replenishment delivery moves also have `move_dest_ids` linked to receipt moves of the other warehouse, but `origin_returned_move_id is not set` since they are not return move Because of this, these valid demand moves were incorrectly excluded from the monthly demand computation.
- Also, in inter-warehouse flows with multi-step delivery, `delivery moves` stay in the `waiting state` since they wait for another operation, so they were also not counted. Additionally, `orderpoint-triggered` moves use a `fixed midday scheduled time`, and since monthly demand was computed using the current timestamp as the limit  date, same-day moves could be excluded if checked before midday.

After This Commit:
=========================
- The monthly demand move domain was updated to correctly count inter-warehouse, manufacturing, and subcontracting resupply demand moves while still avoiding inflated demand from intermediate moves. The move state domain was also updated to `include waiting moves` in multi-step flows, and the limit date now uses the full current day so same day moves are counted correctly.

Enterprise PR: odoo/enterprise#115944
TaskID-5490137

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280167
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262435

### Steps to reproduce:
- Open CRM app (or any model with chatter)
- Open any record (e.g., an Opportunity)
- Click "Log note"
- Type some text into the input box
- Click the "Full composer" icon to open the mail composition wizard
- Log the note
- Click "Log Note" again
> The note is logged successfully, but the text remains visible inside the small
  inline chatter input box as if it was never sent. (Doesn't happen everytime)

### Cause of Issue:
Composer drafts are auto-saved to IndexedDB via the debounced saveContent()
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ac2d15c1132af16f00f8955d1be9b43a8626d9bd/addons/mail/static/src/core/common/composer.js#L986-L1003

`clear()`, called from the Full Composer's `onClose` handler after logging a note, only resets in-memory composer state and removes a `localStorage` key — it never deletes the corresponding `IndexedDB` entry.

### Fix:
Have `clear()` also delete the persisted IndexedDB draft via the helper used after a normal chatter post in `_sendMessage()`, so `clear()` fully tears down both in-memory and persisted state.

opw-6354149

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275999

Currently, a transfer is marked as 'Printed' only when the 'Picking Operations' report is printed using the Print button in the 'ready' state. If the same report is printed from the actions (gear) menu, the transfer is not marked as printed.

This PR ensures that printing the 'Picking Operations' report from the actions menu also marks the transfer as 'Printed'.

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install the stock module.
- Open the Transfers list view.
- Add custom group for 'Printed'.
- Open a transfer in the 'ready' state and print the 'Picking Operations' report using the Print button. Notice that the transfer is marked as 'Printed'.
- Open another transfer in the 'ready' state and print the 'Picking Operations' report from the actions menu.
- Observe that the transfer is not marked as Printed. The same issue occurs when printing it from list view.

**Expected behavior:**
A transfer in the 'ready' state should be marked as Printed whenever the 'Picking Operations' report is printed, regardless of whether it is triggered from the 'Print' button or the actions menu.
close #235129

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276582

**Problem:**
When creating a new task, the Customer does not follow the project the user selects: once a first project has filled it, selecting another project keeps the previous project's customer.

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Create a new task and select a project that has a customer.
2. The Customer is set to that project's customer.
3. Select another project configured with a different customer.
4. Observe the Customer keeps the first project's customer.

**Current behavior:**
The Customer keeps the first selected project's customer.

**Expected behavior:**
The Customer follows the selected project and shows its customer.

**Cause of the issue:**
partner_id is filled by _compute_partner_id, which only assigns a partner while the field is empty. Once a project has filled it, selecting another project no longer refreshes the now non-empty Customer.

**Fix:**
Refresh the Customer from the project on project_id change, but only while the task is new (no _origin). An existing task's customer is left untouched, since it may already carry sale order lines, timesheets, materials or worksheets that must not be reset when the project changes.

opw-6315902

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#279356
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276211

Issue:
Every change of the selected order makes the PoS call `pos.config.update_customer_display`, which publishes the order on the bus for the customer display paired with this browser. The device uuid identifying that pairing is only generated when the customer display dialog is opened, so a PoS whose customer display was never opened sends `device_uuid: null` and the server publishes on `UPDATE_CUSTOMER_DISPLAY-null`, a channel nobody can listen to.

Steps to reproduce:
Open a PoS session, never open the customer display, and add a product to an order.

Current behaviour:
An rpc is sent for each change of the order, and each of them ends up as a bus notification that no customer display can ever receive.

Expected behaviour:
Nothing is sent as long as no customer display was ever opened.

Solution:
Skip the rpc while no device uuid exists. A customer display opened in the same browser as the PoS is served by the BroadcastChannel, which is unaffected.

task-6408513

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277687

Steps to reproduce:
- Open any PoS session
- Click on Orders and filter by "Paid" orders
- Select an order and click on "Details"
- Open the "Payments" tab and click on the "View" button of a payment
- Click on the payment method link

Traceback:
OwlError: The following error occurred in onWillStart: "Cannot find key "pos_payment_provider_cards" in the "view_widgets" registry"

Backend views opened from within the PoS UI (order details dialog, drill-down on many2one links, ...) share their arch with the backend, but `point_of_sale._assets_pos` excludes everything under `static/src/backend/`, so widgets defined there (e.g. `pos_payment_provider_cards`, `lna_checklist`,
`point_of_sale_test_epos`) are never registered in the PoS UI. Unlike missing field widgets, which fall back to the default widget with a warning, an unknown `<widget>` node makes the whole view crash since `Widget.parseWidgetNode` reads the registry without a fallback.

Those widgets are backend configuration helpers that are irrelevant in a PoS session, so instead of bundling each of them (and any future one) in the PoS assets, patch `Widget.parseWidgetNode` in the PoS bundle to skip unknown widgets with a warning, like missing field widgets do. This covers the form, list and kanban arch parsers at once.

opw-6382156

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#279823
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276912

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

  Mail server ports are identifiers rather than quantities. The incoming and outgoing mail server views use the unsupported `format` option, so locale-based integer formatting remains enabled.

  Steps to reproduce:

  1. Enable developer mode.
  2. Go to Settings > Technical > Email > Outgoing Mail Servers.
  3. Create a server and set SMTP Port to `8069`.
  4. Move focus away from the field.
  5. The same issue occurs on an Incoming Mail Server with a port such as `10143`.

  Current behavior before PR:

  Ports are displayed with thousands separators, e.g. `8,069` and `10,143`.

  Desired behavior after PR is merged:

  Mail server ports remain unformatted, e.g. `8069` and `10143`.

  Fixes #275937

  ---
  I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr
  
"As a recent Computer Engineering graduate, I made my first open-source contribution to Odoo." :)

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#278329

Currently, a transfer is marked as 'Printed' only when the 'Picking Operations' report is printed using the Print button in the 'ready' state. If the same report is printed from the actions (gear) menu, the transfer is not marked as printed.

This PR ensures that printing the 'Picking Operations' report from the actions menu also marks the transfer as 'Printed'.

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install the stock module.
- Open the Transfers list view.
- Add custom group for 'Printed'.
- Open a transfer in the 'ready' state and print the 'Picking Operations' report using the Print button. Notice that the transfer is marked as 'Printed'.
- Open another transfer in the 'ready' state and print the 'Picking Operations' report from the actions menu.
- Observe that the transfer is not marked as Printed. The same issue occurs when printing it from list view.

**Expected behavior:**
A transfer in the 'ready' state should be marked as Printed whenever the 'Picking Operations' report is printed, regardless of whether it is triggered from the 'Print' button or the actions menu.
close #235129

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276582

*:mrp_subcontracting_purchase

Issue before this commit:
========================
- In inter-warehouse transfers with `multi-step delivery` and in multi-step manufacturing flows, demand moves were not correctly counted in the monthly demand.

- Also, direct transfers to customer and subcontracting locations generated from `orderpoint` were also not counted correctly (when checked before move scheduled on the same day). This resulted in lower monthly demand values than the actual demand and could lead to inaccurate purchase planning.

Steps to Reproduce:
=========================
- Install `purchase_stock` module and enable multi-step routes.
- Set the Outgoing Shipments in the warehouse to 2-step/3-step.
- Create a second warehouse and configure it to `resupply from another warehouse`.
- Create a storable product and assign a vendor.
- Create an orderpoint for the product in the second warehouse, set the route to the warehouse resupply route, and trigger the replenishment.
- Go to Purchase → Create RFQ for the vendor and open the catalog.
Observation:
The replenishment transfer demand is not correctly counted in the monthly demand

Cause of the issue:
=========================
- In [PR](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/244180), the monthly demand move domain was updated to filter out intermediate customer delivery moves using `move_dest_ids.origin_returned_move_id`. However, inter-warehouse replenishment delivery moves also have `move_dest_ids` linked to receipt moves of the other warehouse, but `origin_returned_move_id is not set` since they are not return move Because of this, these valid demand moves were incorrectly excluded from the monthly demand computation.
- Also, in inter-warehouse flows with multi-step delivery, `delivery moves` stay in the `waiting state` since they wait for another operation, so they were also not counted. Additionally, `orderpoint-triggered` moves use a `fixed midday scheduled time`, and since monthly demand was computed using the current timestamp as the limit  date, same-day moves could be excluded if checked before midday.

After This Commit:
=========================
- The monthly demand move domain was updated to correctly count inter-warehouse, manufacturing, and subcontracting resupply demand moves while still avoiding inflated demand from intermediate moves. The move state domain was also updated to `include waiting moves` in multi-step flows, and the limit date now uses the full current day so same day moves are counted correctly.

Enterprise PR: odoo/enterprise#115944
TaskID-5490137

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280167
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#262435

## 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

Issue:
Every change of the selected order makes the PoS call `pos.config.update_customer_display`, which publishes the order on the bus for the customer display paired with this browser. The device uuid identifying that pairing is only generated when the customer display dialog is opened, so a PoS whose customer display was never opened sends `device_uuid: null` and the server publishes on `UPDATE_CUSTOMER_DISPLAY-null`, a channel nobody can listen to.

Steps to reproduce:
Open a PoS session, never open the customer display, and add a product to an order.

Current behaviour:
An rpc is sent for each change of the order, and each of them ends up as a bus notification that no customer display can ever receive.

Expected behaviour:
Nothing is sent as long as no customer display was ever opened.

Solution:
Skip the rpc while no device uuid exists. A customer display opened in the same browser as the PoS is served by the BroadcastChannel, which is unaffected.

task-6408513

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277687

**Issue**
Selling a kit with dropshipping in AVCO/FIFO could wrongly set the standard_price of the component product to 0 after validating the dropship transfer.

**Steps to reproduce**
- Create a kit and component product
- Activate MTO and dropship route for the kit
- Activate dropship route for the component
- Add a vendor for the component (ex: 100 dollars)
- Set component to AVCO valuation
- Create and confirm a sale order
- Confirm the associate purchase order and the dropship transfer
- Go to the product -> The standard price is still 0 instead of being updated from the supplier price.

**Cause**
While confirming the PO, a picking is created:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/43f5ceadbc1f7df9898c327bf65bffdbe9860c1c/addons/purchase_stock/models/purchase_order.py#L371 With its associated moves:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/43f5ceadbc1f7df9898c327bf65bffdbe9860c1c/addons/purchase_stock/models/purchase_order.py#L383 During the move preparation, the `cost_share` is not propagated on the generated move values, so it remains equal to 0.

The `cost_share` is computed while exploding the kit BOM: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/43f5ceadbc1f7df9898c327bf65bffdbe9860c1c/addons/purchase_mrp/models/purchase.py#L94 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/43f5ceadbc1f7df9898c327bf65bffdbe9860c1c/addons/mrp/models/mrp_bom.py#L463 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/43f5ceadbc1f7df9898c327bf65bffdbe9860c1c/addons/purchase_mrp/models/mrp_bom.py#L62 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/43f5ceadbc1f7df9898c327bf65bffdbe9860c1c/addons/purchase_mrp/models/mrp_bom.py#L70

However, only the `bom_line_id` is propagated on the move values: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/43f5ceadbc1f7df9898c327bf65bffdbe9860c1c/addons/purchase_mrp/models/purchase.py#L94-L99

Later, while validating the dropship transfer:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/43f5ceadbc1f7df9898c327bf65bffdbe9860c1c/addons/stock_account/models/stock_move.py#L177 the move value is used to recompute the standard price: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/43f5ceadbc1f7df9898c327bf65bffdbe9860c1c/addons/stock_account/models/product.py#L651 
While `move.value` is not zero, `move._get_value` is:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/cac987867b083355d3366228d0c551b34f366d92/addons/stock_account/models/product.py#L485-L487
since it depends on the move `cost_share`:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/43f5ceadbc1f7df9898c327bf65bffdbe9860c1c/addons/purchase_mrp/models/stock_move.py#L25

Since the move `cost_share` is 0, the AVCO/FIFO recomputation uses an incorrect value and the component standard price is not updated.

**Solution**
No need to use `cost_share` to compute the value if the price_unit is already given for the component

opw-6176571

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#264341

**PROBLEM**
When using fixed tax not affecting the base on line with discount, the xml generated is invalid and refused by peppol.

**STEP TO REPRODUCE**
1. Install l10n_be.
2. Create an invoice with the following line:
  - qty: 2, price_unit: 100, discount: 10%, taxes: 21% + fixed tax 1€
  - qty: -2, price_unit: 0, taxes: fixed tax 1€
3. Generate an xml, and try validating it on peppol.
4. The validation fails with the error: [BR-27]-The Item net price (BT-146) shall NOT be negative.

**CAUSE**
Fixed tax not affecting the base of other tax are dispatched into new base lines and then merged into one line per fixed tax.
The new base lines they are dispatched to are created as a copy of the line they originated from.
It means we copy the discount from the original lines.
The fixed tax amount is the unit price of each new base lines.
When reducing the base lines into one line, we take the unit prices of the line, and apply the discount to the unit price.
But, since the unit price is the fixed tax amount, and fixed tax are not affected by discounts, we shouldn't apply discount.

**PROBLEM 2**
fixed division by 0 traceback when the aggregation of invoice lines is 0

**STEP TO REPRODUCE**
1. Install l10n_be.
2. Create the following invoice:
  - qty: 1, unit_price: 100, tax:0% + fixed tax 1€, set an analytic distribution account
  - qty: -1, unit_price: 50, tax:0% + fixed tax 1€, set the same analytic distribution account
3. Send the invoice to peppol.
4. A division by 0 should occur.

opw-6388219

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276945

## 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

Issue:
Every change of the selected order makes the PoS call `pos.config.update_customer_display`, which publishes the order on the bus for the customer display paired with this browser. The device uuid identifying that pairing is only generated when the customer display dialog is opened, so a PoS whose customer display was never opened sends `device_uuid: null` and the server publishes on `UPDATE_CUSTOMER_DISPLAY-null`, a channel nobody can listen to.

Steps to reproduce:
Open a PoS session, never open the customer display, and add a product to an order.

Current behaviour:
An rpc is sent for each change of the order, and each of them ends up as a bus notification that no customer display can ever receive.

Expected behaviour:
Nothing is sent as long as no customer display was ever opened.

Solution:
Skip the rpc while no device uuid exists. A customer display opened in the same browser as the PoS is served by the BroadcastChannel, which is unaffected.

task-6408513

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277687

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

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

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

OPW-6388562

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#278595

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

  Mail server ports are identifiers rather than quantities. The incoming and outgoing mail server views use the unsupported `format` option, so locale-based integer formatting remains enabled.

  Steps to reproduce:

  1. Enable developer mode.
  2. Go to Settings > Technical > Email > Outgoing Mail Servers.
  3. Create a server and set SMTP Port to `8069`.
  4. Move focus away from the field.
  5. The same issue occurs on an Incoming Mail Server with a port such as `10143`.

  Current behavior before PR:

  Ports are displayed with thousands separators, e.g. `8,069` and `10,143`.

  Desired behavior after PR is merged:

  Mail server ports remain unformatted, e.g. `8069` and `10143`.

  Fixes #275937

  ---
  I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr
  
"As a recent Computer Engineering graduate, I made my first open-source contribution to Odoo." :)

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#278329

Steps to reproduce:

1) Install hr_holidays & hr_attendance.
2) Enable "Display Extra Hours" & "Absence Management" in the Attendance app settings.
3) Make a new employee, in the form view click the "+" button to make a new hr version record for this employee.
4) Set the date to be the first of the last month.
5) In the Attendance app -> New -> Select the new employee.
6) Select the check in and out dates to be from last month, edit the times such that the time worked is between 7 and 8 hours (ex 9:00am to 4:55pm).
7) In the Attendance app -> Reporting -> Attendances -> the test employee should have a negative value for "Worked Extra Hours"
8) Create a new time off type, enable "Deduct Extra Hours" & disable "Requires Allocation" use hours as the Unit of measure.
9) Open the time off smart button menu from the test employee's form view.

Issue) The value seen in the report from step 7 is not the same as what the user sees in the dashboard.

Notes) This issue can occur when an employee scheduled to work for 8 hours a day only clocks in for 7:55 hours leading to a negative extra time.

The back-end has the correct value stored and sends it to the browser. The issue occurs because the JavaScript function that converts the decimal number of hours into a string (9.5 -> "9:30") does not work with negative input. This PR resolves that issue. 

opw-6417543 

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

Currently, a transfer is marked as 'Printed' only when the 'Picking Operations' report is printed using the Print button in the 'ready' state. If the same report is printed from the actions (gear) menu, the transfer is not marked as printed.

This PR ensures that printing the 'Picking Operations' report from the actions menu also marks the transfer as 'Printed'.

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install the stock module.
- Open the Transfers list view.
- Add custom group for 'Printed'.
- Open a transfer in the 'ready' state and print the 'Picking Operations' report using the Print button. Notice that the transfer is marked as 'Printed'.
- Open another transfer in the 'ready' state and print the 'Picking Operations' report from the actions menu.
- Observe that the transfer is not marked as Printed. The same issue occurs when printing it from list view.

**Expected behavior:**
A transfer in the 'ready' state should be marked as Printed whenever the 'Picking Operations' report is printed, regardless of whether it is triggered from the 'Print' button or the actions menu.
close #235129

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276582

## 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:_**

* Install `l10n_br_avatax` and configure Avalara Brazil.
* Create at least two customer invoices.
* Ensure the fiscal position is set to **Automatic Tax Mapping (Avalara Brazil)**.
* Select the invoices and click **Action → Confirm Entries**.

**_Observed behavior:_**

* A traceback is raised with `ValueError: Expected singleton: account.move(...)` and the invoices cannot be validated.

**_Cause:_**

* During tax extraction, `_extract_tax_values_from_l10n_br_avatax_detail` accesses `self.invoice_filter_type_domain` while `self` may contain multiple `account.move` records.
* Accessing `invoice_filter_type_domain` on a multi-recordset raises an `Expected singleton` error, preventing the validation of multiple invoices.

**_Fix:_**

* Build the returned tax values by iterating over each invoice in the recordset and using the corresponding `invoice_filter_type_domain`.
* This ensures `_extract_tax_values_from_l10n_br_avatax_detail` correctly handles multiple invoices during validation without raising a singleton error.

opw-6334761

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#126437
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124993

Steps to Reproduce:

1. Create a vendor/customer with multiple bills/invoices.
2. Fully pay one or more, leaving at least one still open for the same partner.
3. Open Accounting > Reporting > Partner Reports > Aged Payable/Receivable.
4. Set  to any date and click into an aging bucket for that partner.

Issue:
The drill-down list shows fully settled bills (residual = 0.00) alongside genuinely outstanding ones. Only surfaces when the partner has at least one open balance — if everything is paid, there is no bucket to click into.

Root Cause:
aged_partner_balance_audit builds the drill-down domain filtering only by reconcile flag, journal type, and date range — never checking residual. Additionally it completely overwrites the XML action domain (account.action_amounts_to_settle) which already had ('amount_residual', '!=', 0), losing that protection entirely.

Fix:
Added ('residual_at_date', '!=', 0) to the domain in aged_partner_balance_audit and set recon_limit in the action context so residual_at_date computes as of the report's 'as of' date rather than today's value:

    action['context'] = {
        'recon_limit': options['date']['date_to'],
    }

Without recon_limit, residual_at_date falls back to amount_residual (today's value) which incorrectly excludes bills that were genuinely open on the report date but paid after it.

Result:
The drill-down now correctly shows only genuinely outstanding items regardless of whether the report is run as of today or a historical date.

opw 6333699

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#126021

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#126497
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123056

### Issue before this commit:
When an invoice's CFDI cancellation request is confirmed (state moves from sent to cancel), reprinting the invoice PDF no longer displays the fiscal information (QR code, digital stamps, fiscal folio/UUID, etc.), even though the signed CFDI attachment is still present on the invoice.

### Steps to reproduce the issue:
1. Download Accounting and l10n_mx
2. Create an invoice and send it to CFDI
3. Select 'Request for cancel'
4. Wait and click retry button in the CFDI tab until the invoice is marked as cancelled
5. Print the invoice again
6. See PDF does not show fiscal information (QR, fiscal folio, etc.)

### Cause of the issue:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/f6c94d4ca3ef4211a5ab00bf0b39f6a7675c8f79/l10n_mx_edi/models/account_move.py#L904-L909 Once the CFDI is cancelled, the computed field switches to 'cancel', so the condition fails and the method falls back to the generic account.report_invoice_document template, which has no knowledge of CFDI fiscal fields.

### Reason to introduce the fix:
A cancelled CFDI invoice is still a legally relevant fiscal document in Mexico and must be reprintable with its fiscal data intact (to prove it was issued and later cancelled). The fix extends the condition to also cover the 'cancel' state, ensuring the CFDI-specific report template is used whenever a valid attachment exists, regardless of whether the CFDI is currently signed or cancelled.

opw-6393656

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#126750
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#126466

* = account_invoice_extract, l10n_nl_reports

Example of steps:
- Install web_studio and `accountant`
- Open the corresponding form view in Studio
- With debug mode toggle "Show invisible Elements" and edit
"Invisible" on the second partner_id field
- Traceback

`normalize()` compares the combined arch without the studio
customization to the one with it, in order to compute the smallest
possible set of xpaths. To do so, it calls `apply_inheritance_specs`
(the low-level function from `odoo.tools.template_inheritance`)
directly on the statically combined arch.

Some models add or duplicate nodes dynamically in `_get_view()`
(Python postprocessing, run after the static view combination). A
studio operation can target such a node, since it is what the user
actually sees and clicks on. But that node has no counterpart in the
purely static combined arch used by `normalize()`, so
`apply_inheritance_specs` raises a ValueError.

`edit_view()` only catches `ValidationError` to fall back to an
un-optimized (but valid) studio arch instead of failing the request.
Since the low-level function raises a plain `ValueError` here, that
fallback never triggers, and the exception is not caught anywhere.

To fix this, we will keep the behavior from version 18.0 and catch the
ValueError raised by `apply_inheritance_specs` in
`normalize_with_keyed_tree` and re-raise it as a ValidationError, like
`ir.ui.view.apply_inheritance_specs` already does elsewhere. This lets
`edit_view()`'s existing fallback handle the case gracefully instead
of crashing.

Additionally, the two models responsible for the dynamically-added nodes
described above are fixed at the source. `account_invoice_extract`'s
duplicated `partner_id` field and `l10n_nl_reports`'s injected
`company_id` field are now marked with `data-used-by`, the same
attribute `_add_missing_fields` already sets in `ir_ui_view.py` for the
fields it adds.
Studio already skip rendering and computing xpaths for any node carrying
this attribute (since https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/92862),
so these nodes are no longer exposed to the user and can no longer
produce a studio operation that `normalize()` is unable to locate.

opw-6332911

## Issue
When logging timesheet from the *Recorded* smart button on a Sale Order containing multiple service items, the recorded hours will be added to the first sale order line, regardless of the task ID set on the timesheet entries.

## Steps to reproduce
1. Install *Sales Timesheet* (`sale_timesheet`)
2. Create a Product P:
    - *Product Type*: Service
    - *Create on Order*: Task
    - *Project*: Any
3. Create a SO:
    - *Customer*: Any
    - Add the product P on two different lines and give them two different descriptions D1 and D2
    - Confirm the SO, this will create two tasks with the names D1 and D2
4. On the SO, click the *Recorded* smart button and create two entries:
    1. Task D1, 2 hours spent
    2. Tsk D2, 3 hours spent
5. **Back on the SO, there are 5 hours registered for the first SOL (with the description D1), which does not match the entries we created from the smart button.**

It is worth noting that when we create the Timesheets entries from the project itself (instead of the SO's smart button), the hours are correctly distributed among the different SOLs.

## Cause
The SOL linked to the timesheet entry (`account.analytic.line`) is computed by `_compute_so_line`:

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/8b102f500f5a122e99b07a08cc43814e7c6f0f75/addons/sale_timesheet/models/hr_timesheet.py#L79-L82

This method sets the correct SOL under the condition that `is_so_line_edited` is False and `_is_no_billed()` returns True.

When opening the *Recorded* smart button from a SO, the `is_so_line_edited` is set to True by default, even if no SOL was modified.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/8b102f500f5a122e99b07a08cc43814e7c6f0f75/addons/sale_timesheet/models/sale_order.py#L113-L117

As that value is never set to False, when trying to compute the SOL for the timesheet entry, the entry is skipped and the default SOL (which is the first one) is used instead.

opw-6133473