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#126765
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120392

* = 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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#122829

**Before this change**
We have the potential to attempt to send a notification email from virtual records created by our `BaseModel.new()` method. This can happen during an `onchange` request, given that we'll be working with a virtual "snapshot" record to recompute potentially changed values for our origin record after a change to one or more values.

This issue manifests when using Studio to attach a many2many field to a form view, where the related model is "Approval Request". If an approval request record in either the "Approved" or "Refused" state is attached to our record via this new Studio field, any `onchange` requests will trigger this bug. This is because we can't send messages on a virtual record.

**After this change**
Prevent the creation and sending of a message if we are computing the request status of a virtual `approval.request()` record. The field `request_status` on this model is computed and stored, but the fact that it is a computed field means that it must be recomputed for a virtual record, even if the origin record already has a stored `request_status`. Thus, we may need to compute a `request_status` value for an ephemeral "snapshot" record.

Though the issue only manifests for the "Approved" and "Refused" states, this PR expands on a test that covers every approval request state.

opw-6390453

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#125374

Sharing a folder with a portal user with an expiration date cannot be done again after the access has expired. The sharing dialog reports success, but the user does not get access and is no longer listed.

### Steps to reproduce

- In Documents, share a folder with a portal user and set an expiration date.
- Wait until the expiration date has passed.
- Share the same folder with the same user again from the invite box.

=> The dialog says the member was added, but the user has no access and does not appear under "People with access".

### Cause

The invite box has no expiration field. When re-inviting a user, it updates the existing `documents.access` record and passes `None` for the expiration, which keeps the old `expiration_date`. If that date is already in the past, the user remains expired even though the invite reports success.

### Fix

Pass `False` instead of `None` when inviting a member so the existing record's expiration date is cleared. Re-inviting an expired user now restores access. Setting an expiration from the "People with access" list is unchanged.

opw-6387559

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#125140