Steps to reproduce the error: (Python Version: 3.14.X)
- Install ``accounting_firm`` industry with demo data

Code for server action to generate the error:
```py
for i in [1]:
    try:
        pass
    except Exception:
        pass
    if i:
        pass
```

Traceback:
```py
ValueError: forbidden opcode(s) in'...': JUMP_BACKWARD_NO_INTERRUPT
```

https://github.com/odoo/industry/blob/701f7595453772e42ce72aa75df346a504e5bd82/accounting_firm/demo/ir_actions_server.xml#L105-L108
The server action contains a ``for`` loop with a ``try/except`` block followed by additional statements in the loop body,
this combination generates the ``JUMP_BACKWARD_NO_INTERRUPT`` opcode, which is not included in ``_SAFE_OPCODES`` at [1].
When the server action is evaluated by ``safe_eval``, it calls the ``assert_valid_codeobj`` method, which validates the compiled bytecode against ``_SAFE_OPCODES``. Since ``JUMP_BACKWARD_NO_INTERRUPT`` is not present in the allowed opcodes, ``assert_valid_codeobj()`` raises a ``ValueError`` at [2] before the server action is executed .

Solution:
``JUMP_BACKWARD_NO_INTERRUPT`` opcode is added in the ``_SAFE_OPCODES`` and it is also added in the ``_SAFE_QWEB_OPCODES``.
It was added in Python 3.11: https://docs.python.org/3/whatsnew/3.11.html#new-opcodes

``JUMP_BACKWARD_NO_INTERRUPT`` is a control-flow opcode that only changes
the interpreter's execution flow by jumping back to a previous instruction.
It is the equivalent to ``JUMP_BACKWARD`` opcode. Its only semantic difference is
that the interpreter does not perform an interrupt check at that instruction.
It does not introduce any new capabilities or perform operations such as
attribute access, imports, function calls, or object creation.
Ref: https://docs.python.org/3.12/library/dis.html#opcode-JUMP_BACKWARD_NO_INTERRUPT

Similar commit that adds some necessary opcodes: 
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/86498d24946e510025add5d24ef0d4bcce8ad05f

[1]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/2ccbc4660077bd48529e9de43d4309fbfafc75ca/odoo/tools/safe_eval.py#L135
[2]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/2ccbc4660077bd48529e9de43d4309fbfafc75ca/odoo/tools/safe_eval.py#L244-L246

sentry-7614026125

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277192

### Steps to reproduce

1. Install *Sales* and *Timesheets*
2. Create a service product: Invoicing Policy = *Based on Timesheets*, Create on Order = *Task*
3. Create a sale order for it (quantity 1) and confirm it
4. On the generated task, log **4.5 h on 15/06** and **3.5 h on 23/07**
5. *Create Invoice* with no timesheet period → 8 h, and post it
6. On that invoice: *Reverse* → *Partial Refund*, set the quantity to **3.5 h** and post it → 4.5 h invoiced
7. Log **1 h on 31/07** → 9 h delivered
8. *Create Invoice* again, with a **Timesheets Period of 01/06 → 31/07**

### Current behavior

The invoice bills **9 h**: the 4.5 h that were invoiced and not credited are billed a second time.

### Expected behavior

The invoice bills **4.5 h** — the quantity delivered minus the quantity invoiced.

### Cause of the issue

Posting a partial credit note clears `timesheet_invoice_id` on every timesheet the reversed invoice
had linked (`sale_timesheet/models/account_move.py`, `action_post`), because a credit note carries a
quantity and never a set of timesheets, so there is no way to tell which hours it credited.

All of those hours therefore become candidates again in `_recompute_qty_to_invoice`, which assigns
their sum to `qty_to_invoice` without comparing it to what is still due on the line.

### Fix

Timesheet links cannot express a partially invoiced timesheet, so they are used only to select the
hours a period concerns, while the quantity that may still be billed is
`qty_delivered - qty_invoiced`. The period lookup is capped by that remainder, and kept at zero or
above so that an over-invoiced line is corrected by a deliberate credit note rather than as a side
effect of invoicing a period.

### Tests

Five tests are added to `addons/sale_timesheet/tests/test_sale_timesheet.py`.

Three of them fail without the fix:

| test | without the fix |
| --- | --- |
| `test_period_invoice_does_not_rebill_refunded_invoice_hours` | `9.0 != 4.5` |
| `test_period_invoice_after_refund_is_computed_per_line` | `4.0 != 1.5` |
| `test_period_invoice_after_refund_of_an_over_invoiced_line` | `8.0 != 1.0` |

The other two cover behaviour that is not exercised today and that the fix must not break: an
over-invoiced line (which must be left out rather than credited, and must not prevent the other
lines of the order from being invoiced) and the reversed invoice's own `invoice_date`, which must not
influence the quantity billed for a period.

The full `sale_timesheet` suite passes (86 tests).

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280536

The product specifications table is displayed whenever the product has tags, even if none of them are visible on the ecommerce website.

The product tags template filters out non-visible tags, but the surrounding table remains rendered and appears empty.

Only display the tags table when at least one tag is visible on ecommerce.

@Tecnativa TT63855

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

The condition used to display the product tags table considers all tags associated with the product, including those that are not visible on ecommerce.

**Current behavior before PR:**

When a product only has non-visible tags, the tags table is displayed without any content.

<img width="669" height="350" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/4758ea76-5186-4035-a065-aa4c71ce7053" />


**Desired behavior after PR is merged:**

The tags table is only displayed when the product has at least one tag visible on ecommerce.




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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#278604