### Issue:
A user who can modify `tax_exigibility` but does not have `account.group_account_readonly` is blocked from switching to `on_payment`
There is no way to complete the operation as the account field is not visible and cannot be filled before saving
 
### Cause:
When `tax_exigibility` is set to `on_payment`, the view expects `cash_basis_transition_account_id` to be filled before saving`_constrains_cash_basis_transition_account` then validates that the account is reconcilable
 
`cash_basis_transition_account_id` was restricted to `account.group_account_readonly`, hiding it from other users
The field is never rendered, so it cannot be filled
The `required` constraint is never evaluated client-side and `_constrains_cash_basis_transition_account` raises a `ValidationError` on save because the account is empty
 
There is no reason to restrict `cash_basis_transition_account_id` independently — if a user can modify `tax_exigibility`, they must also be able to set the linked account
 
### Steps to reproduce:
- Install `account`
- Enable Cash Basis in Settings
  (On RunBot ensure no default account is set)
- Enable Developer Mode in Settings
- Go to Settings > Users & Companies > Users
- Open the current user and disable both:
  `Show Accounting Features - Readonly` and `Show Full Accounting Features` (if set)
- Go to Invoicing > Configuration > Taxes
- Open any tax and go to Advanced Options
- Change Tax Exigibility to Based on Payment

Before the fix, the account selector is not displayed and saving raises an error
 
opw-6359173

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#274728

Before this commit, the `empty a many2one field in list view` test sometimes failed, because the many2one value wasn't correctly unset (`first record` was selected). This happened because we cleared the input and automatically validated (typically with tab). However, it could happen that the validation occurred after the dropdown was opened, so the first value of the dropdown was selected. As a matter of fact, adding `await runAllTimers()` after clearing the input is a way to make the test fail deterministically.

This commit avoids the issue by emptying the many2one without validation, so it basically only set the input value to the empty string, but doesn't tab/enter or anything else, hence it never selects an unwanted value.

runbot error-941430

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

Current behavior before PR:

Desired behavior after PR is merged:




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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280351

This is rather an attempt of fix, as we couldn't reproduce the error locally or in a multi build., so we have no guarantee that this strenghtens the test.

The test sometimes fails as `.o_crop_icon` can't be found within 200ms. Before that, we wait for the video element to be ready (we rely on a patch of the `isVideoReady` method of the component to know that the video is ready). Once it is, the isReady flag in the state is set to true and the CropOverlay component renders its `o_crop_icon` element.

Our guess is that we may sometimes early return in `isVideoReady`, because the component has been destroyed (a new rendering might be on the way). To ensure that we don't take that as the ready signal in the test, we now only consider that we're ready if isVideoReady returned true (i.e. no early return).

runbot error-241798

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

Current behavior before PR:

Desired behavior after PR is merged:




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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280329

Steps to reproduce
1. Go to Manufacturing > Configuration > Settings and enable By-Products
2. Go to Inventory > Configuration > Locations, find the location with type
   Production and set the Cost of Production account
3. Go to Inventory > Configuration > Product Categories and set the costing
   method to Standard Price and Inventory Valuation to Perpetual (at invoicing)
4. Set the finished product and byproduct as Storable with a non-zero Cost
5. Create a BoM with a component and a byproduct with a Cost Share % assigned
6. Create and complete a manufacturing order
7. Check the journal entries of the MO: the byproduct entry shows $0

Issue
Standard-cost byproduct moves have no price_unit set in either code path
of _cal_price, so their journal entries always show $0.

When the finished product is standard cost, _cal_price returns early at
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/55221db559cda1c61229eecf8493f5fbaee5cd50/addons/mrp_account/models/mrp_production.py#L66-L68
without iterating byproducts at all, so no price_unit is ever set on them.

When the finished product is FIFO/AVCO, the byproduct loop at
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/55221db559cda1c61229eecf8493f5fbaee5cd50/addons/mrp_account/models/mrp_production.py#L83-L84
only sets price_unit for FIFO/AVCO byproducts. Standard byproducts are
skipped, giving them $0 even though their cost_share was already deducted
from the finished product, making value disappear from inventory entirely.

For standard-cost products the MO has no influence on their value — they
always use the standard_price from the product form, regardless of cost_share.

Solution
In the early-return branch, iterate byproducts: standard ones get
standard_price, FIFO/AVCO ones get total_cost * cost_share.
In the FIFO/AVCO branch, add the same standard_price fallback so standard
byproducts are no longer left at $0 when their cost_share is set.

opw-6020065

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280614
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#257472

**Issue**
Confirming a SO that generates a batch of MOs from a BoM with a
batch size could lead to creating an invalid number of pickings: all the
MOs end up sharing a single picking instead of getting one each.

**Steps to reproduce**
- Use 2-step manufacturing
- Create a storable product with the MTO + Manufacture routes
- Add a BOM that has a batch size of 10 that consumes one component
- Create and confirm a SO of 100 units of that product
-> 10 MOs are created, but each one points to the same "Pick Components" transfer instead of getting its own.

**Cause**
This commit dd6ee071f949752d31497d9f975ba7fc41ebcd98 batches the confirm of productions: 
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b51dc298fd63d9586d0b8d7cff59764b0dee5cae/addons/mrp/models/stock_rule.py#L120
thus `assign_picking` is called in batches: 
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b51dc298fd63d9586d0b8d7cff59764b0dee5cae/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L1653
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b51dc298fd63d9586d0b8d7cff59764b0dee5cae/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1736-L1737
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b51dc298fd63d9586d0b8d7cff59764b0dee5cae/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1550-L1556
since, the `reference_ids` are the same for each MO/stock.move (they all come from the same procurement):
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b51dc298fd63d9586d0b8d7cff59764b0dee5cae/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1712-L1713

Consequently, all the moves end up in the same recordset `moves`:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b51dc298fd63d9586d0b8d7cff59764b0dee5cae/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1527
Creating only one picking:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b51dc298fd63d9586d0b8d7cff59764b0dee5cae/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1577

opw-6403427

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#279179

Issue
-----
Branch companies can have quants of a product limited to their parent company, but they don't show in the per location report.

Steps to reproduce
-----
- Create a branch company
	- Create a WH for the branch
- Create a tracked product
	- Company set to parent only
- Switch to the branch company
	- Add a quant of the product in branch stock
- Open Inventory > Reporting > Locations

> The product is not shown although there is a quant in the branch

Cause
-----
The menu button triggers `action_view_quants`

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/03a3662212f094158f885ae6545009fd0a74d3cb/addons/stock/views/stock_quant_views.xml#L493-L495

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/03a3662212f094158f885ae6545009fd0a74d3cb/addons/stock/models/stock_quant.py#L399-L402

The problem here comes from the fact that in `_get_quants_action`, we limit the products to those of only the active companies, instead of allowing to view those of parent companies aswell.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/03a3662212f094158f885ae6545009fd0a74d3cb/addons/stock/models/stock_quant.py#L1330

Such a change works because the domain is specifically for the product's (`product_id.company_id`) and not the location's.

-----
Ticket:
opw-6131525

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280083
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277531

A user with role Inventory/User cannot validate the dropship of a product with an Average Cost (AVCO) Costing Method

Steps to reproduce:
1. Install sale_management, stock_dropshipping and stock_landed_costs module
2. Go to Sales > Configuration > Categories and change Furniture / Office's Costing Method to Average Cost (AVCO)
3. Go to Settings > Users and set Marc Demo's role on Purchase to User
3. Log in as Marc Demo
4. Create and confirm a quotation for customer Acme Corporation with product Large Cabinet (Dropship route and AVCO costing method)
5. Go to the related purchase order and confirm it
6. Go to the related dropship and validate it
7. An access error is raised

Issue:
Validating a dropship recomputes the cost of the product and reads `stock.valuation.adjustment.lines`
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/cb7b3de6cea07464bcadd1325f52533d34ce09bc/addons/stock_landed_costs/models/stock_move.py#L11 But only Inventory/Administrator have read access to these records https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/cb7b3de6cea07464bcadd1325f52533d34ce09bc/addons/stock_landed_costs/security/ir.model.access.csv#L4

Solution:
Call `_get_landed_cost` with `.sudo()` in order to update the cost even though the user has no landed costs access

opw-6366844

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280521
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276285

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

### Issue:
A partner with VAT set to '/' incorrectly matches a fiscal position with `VAT required`, instead of one without

The '/' value is the placeholder suggested by the UI to indicate that the partner is known to have no VAT, but it was treated as a valid VAT by the fiscal position matching logic

### Cause:
`_get_fpos_ranking_functions` uses `_get_vat_valid` to rank fiscal positions based on VAT presence
`_get_vat_valid` returned `True` for any non-empty VAT value, including '/'
The '/' case was not excluded, causing it to be treated as a valid VAT number

### Steps to reproduce:
- Install `account`
- Create two fiscal positions with auto-apply:
-- Name: FP VAT, VAT required: True, sequence: 1
-- Name: FP no VAT, VAT required: False, sequence: 2
- Create a partner with VAT: '/'
- Create an Invoice for that partner and check the Fiscal Position

Before the fix, `FP VAT` is selected instead of `FP no VAT`

opw-6204531

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280494
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280065

## 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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#274759

When an invoice is created with "Invoice Overages" selected but not all delivered amounts are included, and a second invoice is then created without "Invoice Overages" selected, the system generates a credit note

Steps to reproduce:
1. Install Sales and Project
2. Go to Sales > Products and create a product "test" with Product Type: Service, Create on Order: Project & Task and Invoicing Policy: Prepaid/Fixed Price
3. Create a new quotation for any customer with one unit of product test and confirm it
4. Change the quantity delivered to 5
5. Click on Create Invoice and then Create Draft
6. Change the quantity to 3 and confirm
7. Go back to the sale order
8. Click on Create Invoice and uncheck Invoice Overages then click on Create Draft
9. A credit note is created even though there is nothing to invoice since Invoice Overages was disabled

Issue:
There is no mechanism to prevent the creation of an invoice if we set Invoice Overages to false

Solution:
Prevent invoice creation if Invoice Overages is set to False. Also had to adapt `_compute_invoice_overages` to make it consistent with its inverse method while keeping `allow_invoice_overages` as the default value.

opw-6356807

Before this commit, this test sometimes failed because it couldn't find a dialog containing "camera" within 200ms.

In the test scenario, we click to open the BarcodeDialog, which uses the BarcodeVideoScanner. The latter, in its `onMounted`, checks whether it has the necessary permission, which isn't the case as the `getUserMedia` function is mocked in the test to return a rejected promise. As a consequence, the `onError` callback given in props is called, which changes the state of the parent component, which re-renders itself so display "Unable to access camera" instead of the BarcodeVideoScanner.

To make this test more robust, we do 2 things:
1) load the zxing library before running the test, which avoids the BarcodeVideoScanner component to load it in onWillStart. 2) explicitly wait for the 2 animationFrames, as in the scenario, we must wait for the BarcodeDialog to be rendered twice, and those renderings are now synchronous.

runbot error-237933

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280613

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install Survey app
- Create a survey
- Share as e-mail
- Add some text in the body/subject
- Modify recipients
- The added text is automatically reset

**Issue:**
Behavior was previously introduced to match the content
of the composer body/subject to the recipient language.

If there was only one language among the recipients
it automatically adapted the template and changed the
rendered language (which also refreshed the content).

This logic was triggered by a depends on `partner_ids`
and triggered the compute on every recipient changes
which led to the subject/body reset.

**Fix:**
Revert commit: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/b7bbb7b21f4848323666230b518cad9459726f67 in 18.0+
Also adapt commit: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/c6f19e89cb6019e7dbaadbc7427fbb6ddd5661ed to avoid mixed language in resulting mail when the composer was modified
We could also try to prevent the compute when the subject or body is already modified instead of removing its logic.

opw-6020245

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280162
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#254090

### Steps to reproduce:

- In the settings enable: Multi-Steps Routes
- Inventory > Configuration > Warehouse Management > Warehouses
- Set your warehouse deliveries in two steps
- Inventory > Operations > Tranfers > Internal > New
- Set the operation type as Pick, set a partner and add Partner: Bob
- In the sales & Purchase tab of the partner form set a customer location to be a child of the Customers location: Customers/Bob'Stock
- Confirm and validate the Pick for 1 unit of a product P
#### > A ship picking is created but the destination of the related move is still set to the default customer location.

### Note:

If the flow is performed by a sale order, the `property_stock_customer` location will appropriately be used as `location_final_id`: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/7609b5805c3704034b4d7813e2f356381ed18771/addons/sale_stock/models/sale_order_line.py#L297 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/7609b5805c3704034b4d7813e2f356381ed18771/addons/sale_stock/models/sale_order_line.py#L306-L309 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/720598d0315dbb91628441078febfd43ffefb431/addons/stock/models/stock_rule.py#L263-L264 So that the bug does not occur in that case. By contrast if the pick move is created manually, we do not set its `location_final_id` and hence do not propagate the info. Even though it looks expected to be set set as location_dest_id of the ship move sas suggested by the `stock.picking.location_dest_id` compute method :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/fe3aea07a1964cd24f4c8ebf2bc93e483eca6b0b/addons/stock/models/stock_picking.py#L990-L1002

opw-6402483

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#279616
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#278838

Steps to reproduce
1. Go to Manufacturing > Configuration > Settings and enable By-Products
2. Go to Inventory > Configuration > Locations, find the location with type
   Production and set the Cost of Production account
3. Go to Inventory > Configuration > Product Categories and set the costing
   method to Standard Price and Inventory Valuation to Perpetual (at invoicing)
4. Set the finished product and byproduct as Storable with a non-zero Cost
5. Create a BoM with a component and a byproduct with a Cost Share % assigned
6. Create and complete a manufacturing order
7. Check the journal entries of the MO: the byproduct entry shows $0

Issue
Standard-cost byproduct moves have no price_unit set in either code path
of _cal_price, so their journal entries always show $0.

When the finished product is standard cost, _cal_price returns early at
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/55221db559cda1c61229eecf8493f5fbaee5cd50/addons/mrp_account/models/mrp_production.py#L66-L68
without iterating byproducts at all, so no price_unit is ever set on them.

When the finished product is FIFO/AVCO, the byproduct loop at
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/55221db559cda1c61229eecf8493f5fbaee5cd50/addons/mrp_account/models/mrp_production.py#L83-L84
only sets price_unit for FIFO/AVCO byproducts. Standard byproducts are
skipped, giving them $0 even though their cost_share was already deducted
from the finished product, making value disappear from inventory entirely.

For standard-cost products the MO has no influence on their value — they
always use the standard_price from the product form, regardless of cost_share.

Solution
In the early-return branch, iterate byproducts: standard ones get
standard_price, FIFO/AVCO ones get total_cost * cost_share.
In the FIFO/AVCO branch, add the same standard_price fallback so standard
byproducts are no longer left at $0 when their cost_share is set.

opw-6020065

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280614
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#257472

**Issue**
Confirming a SO that generates a batch of MOs from a BoM with a
batch size could lead to creating an invalid number of pickings: all the
MOs end up sharing a single picking instead of getting one each.

**Steps to reproduce**
- Use 2-step manufacturing
- Create a storable product with the MTO + Manufacture routes
- Add a BOM that has a batch size of 10 that consumes one component
- Create and confirm a SO of 100 units of that product
-> 10 MOs are created, but each one points to the same "Pick Components" transfer instead of getting its own.

**Cause**
This commit dd6ee071f949752d31497d9f975ba7fc41ebcd98 batches the confirm of productions: 
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b51dc298fd63d9586d0b8d7cff59764b0dee5cae/addons/mrp/models/stock_rule.py#L120
thus `assign_picking` is called in batches: 
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b51dc298fd63d9586d0b8d7cff59764b0dee5cae/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L1653
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b51dc298fd63d9586d0b8d7cff59764b0dee5cae/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1736-L1737
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b51dc298fd63d9586d0b8d7cff59764b0dee5cae/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1550-L1556
since, the `reference_ids` are the same for each MO/stock.move (they all come from the same procurement):
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b51dc298fd63d9586d0b8d7cff59764b0dee5cae/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1712-L1713

Consequently, all the moves end up in the same recordset `moves`:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b51dc298fd63d9586d0b8d7cff59764b0dee5cae/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1527
Creating only one picking:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b51dc298fd63d9586d0b8d7cff59764b0dee5cae/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1577

opw-6403427

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#279179

Issue
-----
Branch companies can have quants of a product limited to their parent company, but they don't show in the per location report.

Steps to reproduce
-----
- Create a branch company
	- Create a WH for the branch
- Create a tracked product
	- Company set to parent only
- Switch to the branch company
	- Add a quant of the product in branch stock
- Open Inventory > Reporting > Locations

> The product is not shown although there is a quant in the branch

Cause
-----
The menu button triggers `action_view_quants`

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/03a3662212f094158f885ae6545009fd0a74d3cb/addons/stock/views/stock_quant_views.xml#L493-L495

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/03a3662212f094158f885ae6545009fd0a74d3cb/addons/stock/models/stock_quant.py#L399-L402

The problem here comes from the fact that in `_get_quants_action`, we limit the products to those of only the active companies, instead of allowing to view those of parent companies aswell.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/03a3662212f094158f885ae6545009fd0a74d3cb/addons/stock/models/stock_quant.py#L1330

Such a change works because the domain is specifically for the product's (`product_id.company_id`) and not the location's.

-----
Ticket:
opw-6131525

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280083
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277531

A user with role Inventory/User cannot validate the dropship of a product with an Average Cost (AVCO) Costing Method

Steps to reproduce:
1. Install sale_management, stock_dropshipping and stock_landed_costs module
2. Go to Sales > Configuration > Categories and change Furniture / Office's Costing Method to Average Cost (AVCO)
3. Go to Settings > Users and set Marc Demo's role on Purchase to User
3. Log in as Marc Demo
4. Create and confirm a quotation for customer Acme Corporation with product Large Cabinet (Dropship route and AVCO costing method)
5. Go to the related purchase order and confirm it
6. Go to the related dropship and validate it
7. An access error is raised

Issue:
Validating a dropship recomputes the cost of the product and reads `stock.valuation.adjustment.lines`
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/cb7b3de6cea07464bcadd1325f52533d34ce09bc/addons/stock_landed_costs/models/stock_move.py#L11 But only Inventory/Administrator have read access to these records https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/cb7b3de6cea07464bcadd1325f52533d34ce09bc/addons/stock_landed_costs/security/ir.model.access.csv#L4

Solution:
Call `_get_landed_cost` with `.sudo()` in order to update the cost even though the user has no landed costs access

opw-6366844

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280521
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276285

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Go to any view where you can send mails (eg sale orders)
- Send a first mail to multiple recipients so they are added automatically on the next mail.
- Open a new mail, confirm that the recipients are present, add a selectable attachment (eg a PDF), then click on it.
- Remove any amount of recipients then send the mail.
- You will see that the recipients are added back and the mail is sent to them.

**Behavior:**
Currently whenever a user clicks on an attachment in a mail composer, the systems considers that the user might be trying
to leave the page and will trigger an `urgentSave()`, and further down the line a `web_save()`.

The behavior when a web_save() is triggered is to create a record if there isnt currently one, and otherwise to write the modified values onto the record, using commands.

The recipients for the mail are added by default, which is represented by a list of `[4, id]`add commands, that will be written on the record created in the first `web_save`, however this list is not correctly emptied after the first `_save()`.

If the list is present within `this._changes` then it is correctly cleared, but in the case where no changes were made, the within `this._values['partner_ids']` still contains the commands.
So when we later assign `this.data = { ...this._values };`, `this.data['partner_ids']` now contains our uncleared list of commands.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f3e407c6a58abd2ddba42f26fcbd1928da63cb63/addons/web/static/src/model/relational_model/record.js#L1222-L1230

And when we compute changes['partner_ids'] in our next iteration, we find ourselves with our command list again.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f3e407c6a58abd2ddba42f26fcbd1928da63cb63/addons/web/static/src/model/relational_model/record.js#L1317-L1322

So when we then try to remove a recipient tag, the new delete command `[3, id]`
just gets canceled out with the already present add command.
And the `write()` in `web_save()` only writes add commands of already present partners, which doesn't do anything.

----

This commit adds a line to ensure commands inside `_values` are cleared

opw-6304713

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280533
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#278876

Steps to reproduce:
1. Install Calendar
2. Create a meeting in Calendar in form view
3. Set the video link on it
4. Turn on the debug mode
5. Now, clear the video link

Issue:
- Traceback
```
Uncaught Promise > Invalid props for component 'CopyButton': 'content' is not a string or object or function
```

Cause:
- The 'CopyButton' component expect content to be a string, object or function but receives false.
  It does not happen in previous versions because in the refector https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/c2f34517b2f9832a498981d0fa17ec39b9739cb6 set the `videocall_location` to false instead of empty string like before https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/499420f7062ab467ff6f50b30c547e54c35ae1e9/addons/web/static/src/core/copy_button/copy_button.js#L14
- but any field using the `CopyClipboardChar/CopyClipboardURL` widget passes its raw field value straight through as content. An empty char/text field is represented as false, so whenever such a field becomes empty, CopyClipboardField hands `false` to CopyButton, which fails prop validation (debug mode).


Solution:
- Fix it at the source: CopyClipboardField's template now falls back to an empty string when the field value is falsy,
  so CopyButton never receives false but a valid string.

opw-6360936

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275236

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

### Issue:
A partner with VAT set to '/' incorrectly matches a fiscal position with `VAT required`, instead of one without

The '/' value is the placeholder suggested by the UI to indicate that the partner is known to have no VAT, but it was treated as a valid VAT by the fiscal position matching logic

### Cause:
`_get_fpos_ranking_functions` uses `_get_vat_valid` to rank fiscal positions based on VAT presence
`_get_vat_valid` returned `True` for any non-empty VAT value, including '/'
The '/' case was not excluded, causing it to be treated as a valid VAT number

### Steps to reproduce:
- Install `account`
- Create two fiscal positions with auto-apply:
-- Name: FP VAT, VAT required: True, sequence: 1
-- Name: FP no VAT, VAT required: False, sequence: 2
- Create a partner with VAT: '/'
- Create an Invoice for that partner and check the Fiscal Position

Before the fix, `FP VAT` is selected instead of `FP no VAT`

opw-6204531

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280494
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280065

## 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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#274759

Before this commit, this test sometimes failed because it couldn't find a dialog containing "camera" within 200ms.

In the test scenario, we click to open the BarcodeDialog, which uses the BarcodeVideoScanner. The latter, in its `onMounted`, checks whether it has the necessary permission, which isn't the case as the `getUserMedia` function is mocked in the test to return a rejected promise. As a consequence, the `onError` callback given in props is called, which changes the state of the parent component, which re-renders itself so display "Unable to access camera" instead of the BarcodeVideoScanner.

To make this test more robust, we do 2 things:
1) load the zxing library before running the test, which avoids the BarcodeVideoScanner component to load it in onWillStart. 2) explicitly wait for the 2 animationFrames, as in the scenario, we must wait for the BarcodeDialog to be rendered twice, and those renderings are now synchronous.

runbot error-237933

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280613

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install Survey app
- Create a survey
- Share as e-mail
- Add some text in the body/subject
- Modify recipients
- The added text is automatically reset

**Issue:**
Behavior was previously introduced to match the content
of the composer body/subject to the recipient language.

If there was only one language among the recipients
it automatically adapted the template and changed the
rendered language (which also refreshed the content).

This logic was triggered by a depends on `partner_ids`
and triggered the compute on every recipient changes
which led to the subject/body reset.

**Fix:**
Revert commit: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/b7bbb7b21f4848323666230b518cad9459726f67 in 18.0+
Also adapt commit: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/c6f19e89cb6019e7dbaadbc7427fbb6ddd5661ed to avoid mixed language in resulting mail when the composer was modified
We could also try to prevent the compute when the subject or body is already modified instead of removing its logic.

opw-6020245

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280162
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#254090

### Issue:
A user who can modify `tax_exigibility` but does not have `account.group_account_readonly` is blocked from switching to `on_payment`
There is no way to complete the operation as the account field is not visible and cannot be filled before saving
 
### Cause:
When `tax_exigibility` is set to `on_payment`, the view expects `cash_basis_transition_account_id` to be filled before saving`_constrains_cash_basis_transition_account` then validates that the account is reconcilable
 
`cash_basis_transition_account_id` was restricted to `account.group_account_readonly`, hiding it from other users
The field is never rendered, so it cannot be filled
The `required` constraint is never evaluated client-side and `_constrains_cash_basis_transition_account` raises a `ValidationError` on save because the account is empty
 
There is no reason to restrict `cash_basis_transition_account_id` independently — if a user can modify `tax_exigibility`, they must also be able to set the linked account
 
### Steps to reproduce:
- Install `account`
- Enable Cash Basis in Settings
  (On RunBot ensure no default account is set)
- Enable Developer Mode in Settings
- Go to Settings > Users & Companies > Users
- Open the current user and disable both:
  `Show Accounting Features - Readonly` and `Show Full Accounting Features` (if set)
- Go to Invoicing > Configuration > Taxes
- Open any tax and go to Advanced Options
- Change Tax Exigibility to Based on Payment

Before the fix, the account selector is not displayed and saving raises an error
 
opw-6359173

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#274728

Before this commit, the `empty a many2one field in list view` test sometimes failed, because the many2one value wasn't correctly unset (`first record` was selected). This happened because we cleared the input and automatically validated (typically with tab). However, it could happen that the validation occurred after the dropdown was opened, so the first value of the dropdown was selected. As a matter of fact, adding `await runAllTimers()` after clearing the input is a way to make the test fail deterministically.

This commit avoids the issue by emptying the many2one without validation, so it basically only set the input value to the empty string, but doesn't tab/enter or anything else, hence it never selects an unwanted value.

runbot error-941430

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

Current behavior before PR:

Desired behavior after PR is merged:




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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280351

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Go to any view where you can send mails (eg sale orders)
- Send a first mail to multiple recipients so they are added automatically on the next mail.
- Open a new mail, confirm that the recipients are present, add a selectable attachment (eg a PDF), then click on it.
- Remove any amount of recipients then send the mail.
- You will see that the recipients are added back and the mail is sent to them.

**Behavior:**
Currently whenever a user clicks on an attachment in a mail composer, the systems considers that the user might be trying
to leave the page and will trigger an `urgentSave()`, and further down the line a `web_save()`.

The behavior when a web_save() is triggered is to create a record if there isnt currently one, and otherwise to write the modified values onto the record, using commands.

The recipients for the mail are added by default, which is represented by a list of `[4, id]`add commands, that will be written on the record created in the first `web_save`, however this list is not correctly emptied after the first `_save()`.

If the list is present within `this._changes` then it is correctly cleared, but in the case where no changes were made, the within `this._values['partner_ids']` still contains the commands.
So when we later assign `this.data = { ...this._values };`, `this.data['partner_ids']` now contains our uncleared list of commands.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f3e407c6a58abd2ddba42f26fcbd1928da63cb63/addons/web/static/src/model/relational_model/record.js#L1222-L1230

And when we compute changes['partner_ids'] in our next iteration, we find ourselves with our command list again.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f3e407c6a58abd2ddba42f26fcbd1928da63cb63/addons/web/static/src/model/relational_model/record.js#L1317-L1322

So when we then try to remove a recipient tag, the new delete command `[3, id]`
just gets canceled out with the already present add command.
And the `write()` in `web_save()` only writes add commands of already present partners, which doesn't do anything.

----

This commit adds a line to ensure commands inside `_values` are cleared

opw-6304713

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280533
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#278876

This is rather an attempt of fix, as we couldn't reproduce the error locally or in a multi build., so we have no guarantee that this strenghtens the test.

The test sometimes fails as `.o_crop_icon` can't be found within 200ms. Before that, we wait for the video element to be ready (we rely on a patch of the `isVideoReady` method of the component to know that the video is ready). Once it is, the isReady flag in the state is set to true and the CropOverlay component renders its `o_crop_icon` element.

Our guess is that we may sometimes early return in `isVideoReady`, because the component has been destroyed (a new rendering might be on the way). To ensure that we don't take that as the ready signal in the test, we now only consider that we're ready if isVideoReady returned true (i.e. no early return).

runbot error-241798

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

Current behavior before PR:

Desired behavior after PR is merged:




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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280329

**Issue**
Confirming a SO that generates a batch of MOs from a BoM with a
batch size could lead to creating an invalid number of pickings: all the
MOs end up sharing a single picking instead of getting one each.

**Steps to reproduce**
- Use 2-step manufacturing
- Create a storable product with the MTO + Manufacture routes
- Add a BOM that has a batch size of 10 that consumes one component
- Create and confirm a SO of 100 units of that product
-> 10 MOs are created, but each one points to the same "Pick Components" transfer instead of getting its own.

**Cause**
This commit dd6ee071f949752d31497d9f975ba7fc41ebcd98 batches the confirm of productions: 
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b51dc298fd63d9586d0b8d7cff59764b0dee5cae/addons/mrp/models/stock_rule.py#L120
thus `assign_picking` is called in batches: 
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b51dc298fd63d9586d0b8d7cff59764b0dee5cae/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L1653
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b51dc298fd63d9586d0b8d7cff59764b0dee5cae/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1736-L1737
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b51dc298fd63d9586d0b8d7cff59764b0dee5cae/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1550-L1556
since, the `reference_ids` are the same for each MO/stock.move (they all come from the same procurement):
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b51dc298fd63d9586d0b8d7cff59764b0dee5cae/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1712-L1713

Consequently, all the moves end up in the same recordset `moves`:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b51dc298fd63d9586d0b8d7cff59764b0dee5cae/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1527
Creating only one picking:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b51dc298fd63d9586d0b8d7cff59764b0dee5cae/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1577

opw-6403427

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#279179

Issue
-----
Branch companies can have quants of a product limited to their parent company, but they don't show in the per location report.

Steps to reproduce
-----
- Create a branch company
	- Create a WH for the branch
- Create a tracked product
	- Company set to parent only
- Switch to the branch company
	- Add a quant of the product in branch stock
- Open Inventory > Reporting > Locations

> The product is not shown although there is a quant in the branch

Cause
-----
The menu button triggers `action_view_quants`

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/03a3662212f094158f885ae6545009fd0a74d3cb/addons/stock/views/stock_quant_views.xml#L493-L495

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/03a3662212f094158f885ae6545009fd0a74d3cb/addons/stock/models/stock_quant.py#L399-L402

The problem here comes from the fact that in `_get_quants_action`, we limit the products to those of only the active companies, instead of allowing to view those of parent companies aswell.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/03a3662212f094158f885ae6545009fd0a74d3cb/addons/stock/models/stock_quant.py#L1330

Such a change works because the domain is specifically for the product's (`product_id.company_id`) and not the location's.

-----
Ticket:
opw-6131525

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280083
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277531

Version:
--------
- 19.0+

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
- Install `purchase` and `stock`
- Create a Purchase Order for a storable or consumable product
- Set the ordered quantity to a negative value (e.g. `-10`)
- Confirm the Purchase Order.
- Open the Deliveries and search using the Purchase Order name

Issue:
------
An outgoing return picking is correctly created for 10 units, but an
additional empty incoming receipt is also generated and linked to the
Purchase Order.

Cause:
------
When a Purchase Order is confirmed, `purchase.order.button_approve()` calls
`purchase.order._create_picking()`:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ed0d1bd21131920cb9c7b2ae69d7baedc2818e85/addons/purchase_stock/models/purchase_order.py#L179

Inside `_create_picking()`, if no open picking exists yet,
Then first creates an incoming receipt using `_prepare_picking()`:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ed0d1bd21131920cb9c7b2ae69d7baedc2818e85/addons/purchase_stock/models/purchase_order.py#L382

The generated receipt is configured with:
- source location: Vendor
- destination location: Stock
- picking type: Incoming
- origin: Purchase Order reference

Stock moves are then created on that receipt through:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ed0d1bd21131920cb9c7b2ae69d7baedc2818e85/addons/purchase_stock/models/purchase_order.py#L387-L388

For negative PO quantities, the move is initially created with a negative
demand:

```
Vendor -> Stock, quantity -10
````

During `stock.move._action_confirm()`, stock identifies such moves in
`neg_r_moves`:
[https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ed0d1bd21131920cb9c7b2ae69d7baedc2818e85/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1604](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ed0d1bd21131920cb9c7b2ae69d7baedc2818e85/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1604)

Those moves are automatically converted into return moves by:

* swapping source and destination locations,
* converting the quantity to positive,
* assigning the return picking type when available:
  [https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ed0d1bd21131920cb9c7b2ae69d7baedc2818e85/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1612-L1614](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ed0d1bd21131920cb9c7b2ae69d7baedc2818e85/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1612-L1614)

The resulting move becomes:

```
Stock -> Vendor, quantity 10
```

The converted move is then reassigned through:
[https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ed0d1bd21131920cb9c7b2ae69d7baedc2818e85/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1630](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ed0d1bd21131920cb9c7b2ae69d7baedc2818e85/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1630)

This correctly creates the outgoing return picking.

However, the original incoming receipt created earlier by
`purchase_stock` is left without any moves, resulting in an empty
ghost receipt linked to the Purchase Order.

Solution:
---------
- Track whether `_create_picking()` created a new incoming receipt during
the current confirmation flow.

- After stock move confirmation, if that newly-created receipt no longer
contains any moves, unlink it and remove it from the pickings to
confirm.

- This preserves the valid outgoing return picking while preventing empty
incoming receipts from being generated.


NOTE:
------

This Issue not reproduce from saas-19.3. 
Fix in this [commit](https://github.com/odoo-dev/odoo/commit/81caaaa3f7212ad5d9d72cd446b65c5fb0a9bef9)

---

opw-6131329

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265704

### Steps to reproduce:

- Create 3 AVCO products: Super Kit, Kit, Comp
- Super Kit BoM: 2 x Kit
- Kit BoM: 1 x Comp
- Create and confirm a purchase order for 1 X Super Kit at 100
- Validate the receipt of 2 Comp
- Go to the valuation
> Both units of Comp are valued at 100 for a total of 200

### Cause of the issue:

The issue has been introduced by:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/158849/changes/713701a5035d342263e3fef2a2819b5696b6d063 To be more precise, the price unit of each unit of Comp is expected to be computed by the `_get_price_unit`. This method used to rely on the `product_qty` appropriately:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/158849/changes/713701a5035d342263e3fef2a2819b5696b6d063#diff-687527af1723e60816358020c4d83687479df62ca0cfd71079f0a82afb4b3efeL27 However, backorder adapt the move demand and hence did not provide the appropriate demand in this flow that computation logic was changed to rely on the `bom` and `bom_line` quantities:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/29977a6a80442af49ecefa7fef54f085483d8f77/addons/purchase_mrp/models/stock_move.py#L20-L40 This new computation is not correct in case of nested boms since the `bom_line` only carries the unit demand on the last explosion stage.

### Additional issue:

If nested kit boms lead to the creation of 2 moves with the same `cost_share` and `bom_line_id`, these moves will be merged without summing their `cost_share` leading to an under pricing of the kit since its related `stock_move`'s `cost_share` will not sum up to 100 percents anymore.

This issue is tested in `test_avco_purchase_nested_kit_explode_cost_share_backorder_2` and fixed similarly to demand merging:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/613f3cb7b2f4813ce6c8f53718a6cca841b081ad/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1122-L1134

### Note:

We also modify the test `test_valuation_with_backorder` to be understandable and to make appropriate asserts.

opw-6253776

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#279890
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276242

Steps to reproduce the bug:
- Create three storable products C1 ($10), C2 ($20), C3 ($5)
- Create a product P1 with a BoM: 1x C1 + 1x C2
- Create a Manufacturing Order for P1 and validate it
- Unlock the MO (Settings > Unlock)
- Add C3 as an extra component on the unlocked MO
- Open the MO overview

Problem:
The extra move had value=0 after creation, causing the unit_cost in the
MO overview to appear as 0. When a move is added to a done picking or MO
it is created with state='done' and quantity set immediately. This triggers
_set_quantity_done, which creates the move line and calls
_set_value(correction_quantity=delta). Inside _set_value, for outgoing
moves with a correction_quantity, the code computes:
  previous_qty = move.quantity - correction_quantity
Since the move had no prior quantity, previous_qty=0. The original code then
computed ratio=0 and applied move.value += 0, leaving value=0 instead of
computing it from scratch.

Solution:
When previous_qty=0, skip the ratio branch and fall through to the existing
from-scratch computation (standard_price * _get_valued_qty() for AVCO/standard
costing, _run_fifo() for FIFO).

opw-6377393

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276303

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install Survey app
- Create a survey
- Share as e-mail
- Add some text in the body/subject
- Modify recipients
- The added text is automatically reset

**Issue:**
Behavior was previously introduced to match the content
of the composer body/subject to the recipient language.

If there was only one language among the recipients
it automatically adapted the template and changed the
rendered language (which also refreshed the content).

This logic was triggered by a depends on `partner_ids`
and triggered the compute on every recipient changes
which led to the subject/body reset.

**Fix:**
Revert commit: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/b7bbb7b21f4848323666230b518cad9459726f67 in 18.0+
Also adapt commit: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/c6f19e89cb6019e7dbaadbc7427fbb6ddd5661ed to avoid mixed language in resulting mail when the composer was modified
We could also try to prevent the compute when the subject or body is already modified instead of removing its logic.

opw-6020245

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280162
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#254090

Version:
--------
- 19.0+

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
- Install `purchase` and `stock`
- Create a Purchase Order for a storable or consumable product
- Set the ordered quantity to a negative value (e.g. `-10`)
- Confirm the Purchase Order.
- Open the Deliveries and search using the Purchase Order name

Issue:
------
An outgoing return picking is correctly created for 10 units, but an
additional empty incoming receipt is also generated and linked to the
Purchase Order.

Cause:
------
When a Purchase Order is confirmed, `purchase.order.button_approve()` calls
`purchase.order._create_picking()`:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ed0d1bd21131920cb9c7b2ae69d7baedc2818e85/addons/purchase_stock/models/purchase_order.py#L179

Inside `_create_picking()`, if no open picking exists yet,
Then first creates an incoming receipt using `_prepare_picking()`:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ed0d1bd21131920cb9c7b2ae69d7baedc2818e85/addons/purchase_stock/models/purchase_order.py#L382

The generated receipt is configured with:
- source location: Vendor
- destination location: Stock
- picking type: Incoming
- origin: Purchase Order reference

Stock moves are then created on that receipt through:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ed0d1bd21131920cb9c7b2ae69d7baedc2818e85/addons/purchase_stock/models/purchase_order.py#L387-L388

For negative PO quantities, the move is initially created with a negative
demand:

```
Vendor -> Stock, quantity -10
````

During `stock.move._action_confirm()`, stock identifies such moves in
`neg_r_moves`:
[https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ed0d1bd21131920cb9c7b2ae69d7baedc2818e85/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1604](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ed0d1bd21131920cb9c7b2ae69d7baedc2818e85/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1604)

Those moves are automatically converted into return moves by:

* swapping source and destination locations,
* converting the quantity to positive,
* assigning the return picking type when available:
  [https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ed0d1bd21131920cb9c7b2ae69d7baedc2818e85/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1612-L1614](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ed0d1bd21131920cb9c7b2ae69d7baedc2818e85/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1612-L1614)

The resulting move becomes:

```
Stock -> Vendor, quantity 10
```

The converted move is then reassigned through:
[https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ed0d1bd21131920cb9c7b2ae69d7baedc2818e85/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1630](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ed0d1bd21131920cb9c7b2ae69d7baedc2818e85/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1630)

This correctly creates the outgoing return picking.

However, the original incoming receipt created earlier by
`purchase_stock` is left without any moves, resulting in an empty
ghost receipt linked to the Purchase Order.

Solution:
---------
- Track whether `_create_picking()` created a new incoming receipt during
the current confirmation flow.

- After stock move confirmation, if that newly-created receipt no longer
contains any moves, unlink it and remove it from the pickings to
confirm.

- This preserves the valid outgoing return picking while preventing empty
incoming receipts from being generated.


NOTE:
------

This Issue not reproduce from saas-19.3. 
Fix in this [commit](https://github.com/odoo-dev/odoo/commit/81caaaa3f7212ad5d9d72cd446b65c5fb0a9bef9)

---

opw-6131329

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#265704

### Issue:
A user who can modify `tax_exigibility` but does not have `account.group_account_readonly` is blocked from switching to `on_payment`
There is no way to complete the operation as the account field is not visible and cannot be filled before saving
 
### Cause:
When `tax_exigibility` is set to `on_payment`, the view expects `cash_basis_transition_account_id` to be filled before saving`_constrains_cash_basis_transition_account` then validates that the account is reconcilable
 
`cash_basis_transition_account_id` was restricted to `account.group_account_readonly`, hiding it from other users
The field is never rendered, so it cannot be filled
The `required` constraint is never evaluated client-side and `_constrains_cash_basis_transition_account` raises a `ValidationError` on save because the account is empty
 
There is no reason to restrict `cash_basis_transition_account_id` independently — if a user can modify `tax_exigibility`, they must also be able to set the linked account
 
### Steps to reproduce:
- Install `account`
- Enable Cash Basis in Settings
  (On RunBot ensure no default account is set)
- Enable Developer Mode in Settings
- Go to Settings > Users & Companies > Users
- Open the current user and disable both:
  `Show Accounting Features - Readonly` and `Show Full Accounting Features` (if set)
- Go to Invoicing > Configuration > Taxes
- Open any tax and go to Advanced Options
- Change Tax Exigibility to Based on Payment

Before the fix, the account selector is not displayed and saving raises an error
 
opw-6359173

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#274728

Before this commit, the `empty a many2one field in list view` test sometimes failed, because the many2one value wasn't correctly unset (`first record` was selected). This happened because we cleared the input and automatically validated (typically with tab). However, it could happen that the validation occurred after the dropdown was opened, so the first value of the dropdown was selected. As a matter of fact, adding `await runAllTimers()` after clearing the input is a way to make the test fail deterministically.

This commit avoids the issue by emptying the many2one without validation, so it basically only set the input value to the empty string, but doesn't tab/enter or anything else, hence it never selects an unwanted value.

runbot error-941430

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

Current behavior before PR:

Desired behavior after PR is merged:




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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280351

This is rather an attempt of fix, as we couldn't reproduce the error locally or in a multi build., so we have no guarantee that this strenghtens the test.

The test sometimes fails as `.o_crop_icon` can't be found within 200ms. Before that, we wait for the video element to be ready (we rely on a patch of the `isVideoReady` method of the component to know that the video is ready). Once it is, the isReady flag in the state is set to true and the CropOverlay component renders its `o_crop_icon` element.

Our guess is that we may sometimes early return in `isVideoReady`, because the component has been destroyed (a new rendering might be on the way). To ensure that we don't take that as the ready signal in the test, we now only consider that we're ready if isVideoReady returned true (i.e. no early return).

runbot error-241798

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

Current behavior before PR:

Desired behavior after PR is merged:




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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280329

### Steps to reproduce:

- Create 3 AVCO products: Super Kit, Kit, Comp
- Super Kit BoM: 2 x Kit
- Kit BoM: 1 x Comp
- Create and confirm a purchase order for 1 X Super Kit at 100
- Validate the receipt of 2 Comp
- Go to the valuation
> Both units of Comp are valued at 100 for a total of 200

### Cause of the issue:

The issue has been introduced by:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/158849/changes/713701a5035d342263e3fef2a2819b5696b6d063 To be more precise, the price unit of each unit of Comp is expected to be computed by the `_get_price_unit`. This method used to rely on the `product_qty` appropriately:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/158849/changes/713701a5035d342263e3fef2a2819b5696b6d063#diff-687527af1723e60816358020c4d83687479df62ca0cfd71079f0a82afb4b3efeL27 However, backorder adapt the move demand and hence did not provide the appropriate demand in this flow that computation logic was changed to rely on the `bom` and `bom_line` quantities:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/29977a6a80442af49ecefa7fef54f085483d8f77/addons/purchase_mrp/models/stock_move.py#L20-L40 This new computation is not correct in case of nested boms since the `bom_line` only carries the unit demand on the last explosion stage.

### Additional issue:

If nested kit boms lead to the creation of 2 moves with the same `cost_share` and `bom_line_id`, these moves will be merged without summing their `cost_share` leading to an under pricing of the kit since its related `stock_move`'s `cost_share` will not sum up to 100 percents anymore.

This issue is tested in `test_avco_purchase_nested_kit_explode_cost_share_backorder_2` and fixed similarly to demand merging:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/613f3cb7b2f4813ce6c8f53718a6cca841b081ad/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1122-L1134

### Note:

We also modify the test `test_valuation_with_backorder` to be understandable and to make appropriate asserts.

opw-6253776

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#279890
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276242

**Issue**
Confirming a SO that generates a batch of MOs from a BoM with a
batch size could lead to creating an invalid number of pickings: all the
MOs end up sharing a single picking instead of getting one each.

**Steps to reproduce**
- Use 2-step manufacturing
- Create a storable product with the MTO + Manufacture routes
- Add a BOM that has a batch size of 10 that consumes one component
- Create and confirm a SO of 100 units of that product
-> 10 MOs are created, but each one points to the same "Pick Components" transfer instead of getting its own.

**Cause**
This commit dd6ee071f949752d31497d9f975ba7fc41ebcd98 batches the confirm of productions: 
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b51dc298fd63d9586d0b8d7cff59764b0dee5cae/addons/mrp/models/stock_rule.py#L120
thus `assign_picking` is called in batches: 
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b51dc298fd63d9586d0b8d7cff59764b0dee5cae/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L1653
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b51dc298fd63d9586d0b8d7cff59764b0dee5cae/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1736-L1737
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b51dc298fd63d9586d0b8d7cff59764b0dee5cae/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1550-L1556
since, the `reference_ids` are the same for each MO/stock.move (they all come from the same procurement):
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b51dc298fd63d9586d0b8d7cff59764b0dee5cae/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1712-L1713

Consequently, all the moves end up in the same recordset `moves`:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b51dc298fd63d9586d0b8d7cff59764b0dee5cae/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1527
Creating only one picking:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b51dc298fd63d9586d0b8d7cff59764b0dee5cae/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1577

opw-6403427

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#279179

Issue
-----
Branch companies can have quants of a product limited to their parent company, but they don't show in the per location report.

Steps to reproduce
-----
- Create a branch company
	- Create a WH for the branch
- Create a tracked product
	- Company set to parent only
- Switch to the branch company
	- Add a quant of the product in branch stock
- Open Inventory > Reporting > Locations

> The product is not shown although there is a quant in the branch

Cause
-----
The menu button triggers `action_view_quants`

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/03a3662212f094158f885ae6545009fd0a74d3cb/addons/stock/views/stock_quant_views.xml#L493-L495

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/03a3662212f094158f885ae6545009fd0a74d3cb/addons/stock/models/stock_quant.py#L399-L402

The problem here comes from the fact that in `_get_quants_action`, we limit the products to those of only the active companies, instead of allowing to view those of parent companies aswell.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/03a3662212f094158f885ae6545009fd0a74d3cb/addons/stock/models/stock_quant.py#L1330

Such a change works because the domain is specifically for the product's (`product_id.company_id`) and not the location's.

-----
Ticket:
opw-6131525

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280083
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277531

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

### Issue:
A partner with VAT set to '/' incorrectly matches a fiscal position with `VAT required`, instead of one without

The '/' value is the placeholder suggested by the UI to indicate that the partner is known to have no VAT, but it was treated as a valid VAT by the fiscal position matching logic

### Cause:
`_get_fpos_ranking_functions` uses `_get_vat_valid` to rank fiscal positions based on VAT presence
`_get_vat_valid` returned `True` for any non-empty VAT value, including '/'
The '/' case was not excluded, causing it to be treated as a valid VAT number

### Steps to reproduce:
- Install `account`
- Create two fiscal positions with auto-apply:
-- Name: FP VAT, VAT required: True, sequence: 1
-- Name: FP no VAT, VAT required: False, sequence: 2
- Create a partner with VAT: '/'
- Create an Invoice for that partner and check the Fiscal Position

Before the fix, `FP VAT` is selected instead of `FP no VAT`

opw-6204531

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280494
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280065

## 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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#274759

**Steps to reproduce:**

- Install l10n_pl_edi and enable Allow KSeF integration from 
  **Accounting** settings. 
- Switch to a Polish company.
- Create an EU customer with a valid VAT number.
- Create a sale order containing a service product taxed 
  with 0% Steel (or any tax that has a tag of K11).
- Confirm the sale order and create a down payment invoice. 
- Send the invoice to KSeF and inspect the generated XML. 

**Observed behavior:**

The generated KSeF XML does not contain the `P_13_8` field. 

**Cause:**

For invoices involving the tax of tag `K11` (mainly these taxes are used for the supplies 
that are outside the territory of Poland), the value corresponding to `P_13_8` was not 
being assigned during XML generation, causing the tag to be omitted from the exported 
KSeF document.

**Fix:**

Populate the value of `P_13_8` during KSeF XML generation for invoices, ensuring the 
field is correctly included in the exported XML. 

This PR updates the computation of tag `P_13_10` with its test case to ensure consistency 
with the expected reporting logic, where the tag is computed solely from `K_31`.

Here is the [Documentation](https://ksef.podatki.gov.pl/media/gtjhkeek/information-sheet-on-the-fa-3-logical-structure-04032026.pdf) link for the reference of the Ksef structure. 

**opw**-6294181

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276887

Before this commit, the `empty a many2one field in list view` test sometimes failed, because the many2one value wasn't correctly unset (`first record` was selected). This happened because we cleared the input and automatically validated (typically with tab). However, it could happen that the validation occurred after the dropdown was opened, so the first value of the dropdown was selected. As a matter of fact, adding `await runAllTimers()` after clearing the input is a way to make the test fail deterministically.

This commit avoids the issue by emptying the many2one without validation, so it basically only set the input value to the empty string, but doesn't tab/enter or anything else, hence it never selects an unwanted value.

runbot error-941430

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

Current behavior before PR:

Desired behavior after PR is merged:




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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280351

This is rather an attempt of fix, as we couldn't reproduce the error locally or in a multi build., so we have no guarantee that this strenghtens the test.

The test sometimes fails as `.o_crop_icon` can't be found within 200ms. Before that, we wait for the video element to be ready (we rely on a patch of the `isVideoReady` method of the component to know that the video is ready). Once it is, the isReady flag in the state is set to true and the CropOverlay component renders its `o_crop_icon` element.

Our guess is that we may sometimes early return in `isVideoReady`, because the component has been destroyed (a new rendering might be on the way). To ensure that we don't take that as the ready signal in the test, we now only consider that we're ready if isVideoReady returned true (i.e. no early return).

runbot error-241798

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

Current behavior before PR:

Desired behavior after PR is merged:




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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280329

When a product carrying a multi-select (no_variant) attribute is added to an order by scanning its barcode, the extra price of the selected attribute value was dropped and the product was added at its base price.

The order line total is computed from `price_unit` alone. The `price_extra` of a no_variant attribute is never included in the variant price (a "multi" attribute requires create_variant="no_variant"), so it only reaches the total once folded into `price_unit`. `addLineToOrder` did that fold-in only when the product was not scanned (`!isScannedProduct`).

That guard was added to avoid counting the extra price twice when scanning an "always" variant barcode, whose extra is already part of its price. Since then, the extra price reaching this block is filtered to no_variant values only, both in the configurator and in the direct-variant branch, so an "always" extra can no longer reach it and the guard now only drops legitimate no_variant surcharges.

Remove the guard so the no_variant extra price is always applied.

Steps to reproduce:
- Create a product with a multi-checkbox attribute whose value has an extra price, and give the product a barcode.
- Open the PoS and scan the barcode.
- Pick the attribute value in the configurator and validate. => The extra price is not added to the order line.

opw-6413924

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#278389

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

## 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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#274759

Issue:
---
Fiscal position is wrongly set to `self.env.user.partner_id.country_id`
instead of `partner_shipping` country, if `partner_shipping_id` is not
changed in the checkout process.

Steps:
1- Create two auto detect fiscal positions: France, Germany
2- Set portal user's partner address country to France.
3- Using portal user, shop from website, and create a delivery address.
4- Pay and confirm the order.
5- Using the admin user, you check the SO's FP which is correctly set
   to Germany.
6- Using portal user, again shop from website, and don't change
   address. Keep previous shipping address which is Germany.
7- Confirm and pay the order.
8- Using admin user, check the new SO's FP. It's set to France.

Cause:
---
`_compute_fiscal_position_id` in SO depends on `partner_shipping_id`.
When the `partner_shipping_id` is not changed, the fiscal position
value set in create will remain.
This value is set in `Website._prepare_sale_order_values()`.
The `fiscal_position_id` is set to self.fiscal_position_id, which is
`_get_fiscal_position(self.env.user.partner_id)`.

Fix:
---
If the user has already a SO, we can use last SO's shipping address
and invoice address to calculate FP in `_prepare_sale_order_values`.

opw-6357638

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#278974
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276485

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

Steps to reproduce:
- Install pos_loyalty and pos_online_payment.
- Configure a nominative loyalty program (trigger=auto, applies_on=both) awarding points, and an online payment method.
- In the PoS, add a first-time customer and a product, then pay the order with the online payment method.

Issue:
The customer earns no point, and no loyalty.card is even created for a first-time customer. Orders paid in cash are not affected. The loss is intermittent for customers whose card is already cached.

Cause:
Once paid, the order is rebuilt from the server data and re-selected. `pos.order._export_for_ui` has no `couponPointChanges` field, so the rebuilt order starts with an empty one. `set_order` does schedule a recompute, but it does not await it, and `_postPushOrderResolve` reads `couponPointChanges` right after, before the recompute settles, hence sending nothing to `confirm_coupon_programs`. A first-time customer additionally needs a `fetchLoyaltyCard` RPC, so the recompute can never win the race.

Fix:
Wait for the pending recompute before compiling the coupon data. `Mutex.getUnlockedDef` is used rather than awaiting a new `_updateRewards` call, so that no extra recompute is queued on an order that is already finalized and saved on the server.

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

Current behavior before PR:

Desired behavior after PR is merged:




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

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

A user without accounting rights cannot open an invoice form when l10n_es_edi_verifactu is installed.

The module adds a VeriFactu page and three warning banners to the standard invoice form without any groups restriction, so every user able to open an invoice reads three fields (l10n_es_edi_verifactu_document_ids, l10n_es_edi_verifactu_warning, l10n_es_edi_verifactu_warning_level) pointing at l10n_es_edi_verifactu.document.

That model only grants read access to account.group_account_invoice and account.group_account_readonly.

Steps to reproduce:
- install `l10n_es_edi_verifactu`
- create a salesman user with sales rights but no accounting right (*Own Documents Only* is enough)
- create an ES company and an ES customer
- give the salesman access to the ES company
- activate Peppol in the general settings
- log in as the salesman
- create a sale order in the ES company for the ES customer
- confirm it
- click **Create Invoice**
- click **Create Draft**

Current behavior before PR:

An error access is raised:

Failed to read field account.move.l10n_es_edi_verifactu_document_ids

You are not allowed to access 'Veri*Factu Document' (l10n_es_edi_verifactu.document) records.

This operation is allowed for the following groups:
	- Invoicing/Billing
	- Technical/Show Accounting Features - Readonly

Contact your administrator to request access if necessary.


In Odoo sh (for databases 19.0), the standard test sale_management / TestSaleFlowTourPostInstall.test_basic_sale_flow_with_minimal_access_rights fails  for the same reason as soon as l10n_es_edi_verifactu is installed alongside sale_management.

Desired behavior after PR is merged:

On a database with l10n_es_edi_verifactu installed, a non-accountant user having the possibility to create invoices should not have the error message displayed.


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

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

Portal/public users get AccessError (HTTP 403) when kit product stock
fields are read on the website shop or cart. Kits (phantom BoMs) have no
on-hand stock of their own: `qty_available` / `free_qty` are derived by
finding the BoM, exploding components, and computing how many complete
kits can be built. Shop and cart code read those fields for availability
(in stock / out of stock, prevent selling more than available, etc.).

Portal users are not meant to manage BOMs (no ACL on `mrp.bom`), and kit
components are often not website-published, so the base
`_compute_quantities_dict` path blows up on a normal shop browse.
`website_sale_mrp` already avoids this for cart checks by reading
`product.sudo().free_qty`; the product quantity compute did not.

This affects 17.0+ (verified on 17.0 and 19.0). Targeting 17.0 as the
oldest supported branch so it can be forward-ported.

CLA: covered by https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/275749

Current behavior before PR:

Reading kit stock fields (e.g. on the shop) as a portal/public user raises
AccessError when the BoM or unpublished components must be read.

Desired behavior after PR is merged:

For portal/public users, kit quantity computation runs under `sudo()`
(same idea as `website_sale_mrp`). BOMs stay unreadable to portal users
directly. Regression test covers portal and public access.

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