As the system now starts to be used by real users, we noticed a few points of improvement that can easily be done in stable and will provide a better UX when interacting with the system.

The payment proof as a field was a consequence of multiple iterations of the system; but it ended up only as a way to input the proof and nothing else.
It is confusing, only allows one proof at a time, and is overall not nice to use.
To improve that, we will remove the field and replace it with an 'Attach Payment Proof' button similar to the expense app, allowing for a better experience.

The similar rental check was checking even if all the related fields were empty. On a database migrating from a previous version, this leads to ALL the rentals to be marked as similar, which isn't ideal.
The same check was also comparing multiple rentals from the same employee as long as they are active. As rentals for an employee cannot overlap, it makes no sense to check this case and cause false positives.

task-6448054

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#126764

**Steps to reproduce:**
* Install the **Netherlands - SBR** (`l10n_nl_reports_sbr`) and **Netherlands - SBR OB Nummer** (`l10n_nl_reports_sbr_ob_nummer`) modules.
* Create two companies with Dutch localization.
* Go to **Accounting → Configuration → Tax Units** and create a Tax Unit with its own **Tax ID** (e.g. `NL826317558B01`), adding both companies.
* On the main company form, fill in the **Omzetbelastingnummer** field (e.g. `123456782B90`).
* Go to **Accounting → Reporting → Tax Return**, select the Tax Unit in the filter, and click **XBRL → Download XBRL File**.

**Observed behavior:**
* The `<xbrli:identifier>` in the exported XBRL file contains the company's **Omzetbelastingnummer** (`123456782B90`) instead of the Tax Unit's VAT (`826317558B01`).
* The tax authority rejects the return because the identifier does not match the fiscal unity registration.

**Cause:**
* `_get_sbr_identifier()` in `l10n_nl_reports_sbr_ob_nummer` unconditionally returns `self.env.company.l10n_nl_reports_sbr_ob_nummer` before consulting the Tax Unit.
* The `super()` call, which correctly routes to `tax_unit.vat` via `report.get_vat_for_export()`, is only reached when the company field is empty — so the Tax Unit's VAT is never used when a company OB-number is set.

**Fix:**
* When a Tax Unit is active in the report options, delegate immediately to `super()._get_sbr_identifier()`, which resolves `tax_unit.vat` through the existing `get_vat_for_export()` logic.
* The company-level `l10n_nl_reports_sbr_ob_nummer` override is preserved as a fallback for the `company_only` (no Tax Unit) case.

opw-6350840

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#126999
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#125167

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

opw-6391107

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#126909
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#126359

Problem:
When scanning the first product, the second move line is clicked immediately after. https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/bfb8bab7636a84c829f16087771e00bf31ad2cce/stock_barcode_picking_batch/static/tests/tours/tour_test_barcode_batch_flows.js#L1529-L1541 If this happens before the first scan has finished, its quantity is incorrectly applied to the second move line that is clicked. This causes a 0 - 3 split instead of a 1 - 2 split, which results in there only being 6 move lines instead of 7.

We updated our quantity on the `currentLine`
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/bfb8bab7636a84c829f16087771e00bf31ad2cce/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L1478

When finding `currentLine`, we go through `_findLine` and use `this.selectedLineVirtualId`, which is the one that is currently selected in the UI https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/bfb8bab7636a84c829f16087771e00bf31ad2cce/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L1705-L1712

Purpose:
By adding this step, we wait until the first line’s quantity to be updated before it moves on and clicks on the second product.

runbot-941211

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#126847
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124162

**Steps to reproduce:**

- Enable "Move Entire Packages" setting on deliveries
- Make a product A, that has a package P1, on hand qty of 1
- Make product B that don't have a package, but on hand qty of 1
- Make a delivery that has both of those products, requested qty of 1 for both
- Mark it as todo
- Go to the barcode app, select the delivery
- Select the line with product B
- Select the line with product A
--> The line with product B is not unselected

**Why the fix:**

When we have a mix of packaged products and products without a package on the same operation, they are handled separately.
The products without a package are handled in https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/98c79af3fb6cb354f46fd2f58e642a72a9271443/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L388-L392 
that calls https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/98c79af3fb6cb354f46fd2f58e642a72a9271443/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L1277-L1284 
But as you can see, there are no mention of the selected package line, which is stored in **this.lastScanned.packageId**.

As we do not touch this variable, the selected package line stays selected.

The same is true for the other way around, when we select a package line we call https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/98c79af3fb6cb354f46fd2f58e642a72a9271443/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L394-L398 
This function does not care for the **selectedLineVirtualId** which represents the selected line without a package.

To avoid this and make it so that only one line is selected even if they have different package, we now set the corresponding value to false to unselect the other line in all situation.

This is basically how it's done in https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/98c79af3fb6cb354f46fd2f58e642a72a9271443/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_model.js#L1202-L1208 
to unselect every line regardless of packages.

opw-6266203

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#126790
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#122038

**Description**

When printing the legal PDF of a CFE, the report can request a dedicated addenda page (`adenda=true` report parameter) when the addenda does not fit in the small box of the standard report (roughly 6 lines of 140 characters).

`l10n_uy_edi_document._get_report_params()` computed the addenda by calling `self.move_id._l10n_uy_edi_get_addenda()` directly. For e-remito EDI documents created from stock pickings, `move_id` is not set, so the addenda was always empty and the dedicated addenda page was never requested for delivery guides.

**Changes**

- Resolve the addenda from the document origin record: reuse the existing `_get_origin_record()` abstraction. Add it on `l10n_uy_edi.document` (returns the move) and let `l10n_uy_edi_stock` extend it to fall back to `picking_id`; `_get_report_params()` now reads the addenda through it.
- Remove a no-op `_get_pdf()` override in `l10n_uy_edi_stock`.
- Add a unit test covering the dedicated addenda page threshold (6 lines x 140 chars) for delivery guides.

**Note**

This PR replaces branch `adhoc-dev:18.0-t-stock-edi-addenda-fix-kz` (original authorship preserved); resubmitted from a new branch to keep follow-up and tracking with the current maintainer.

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124539

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#127050
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#125140

**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#280796
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#278876

### 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#280744
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276242

Before this commit, an internal user opening the public page of a channel they are not a member of could see Discuss move to another conversation while composing, so the message was sent without its text and the tour timed out on it:

    FAILED: [15/37] Tour discuss_channel_public_tour.js -> Step
    .o-mail-Message:has(...:contains('cheese'))[data-persistent].
    Element has not been found.
    TIMEOUT step failed to complete within 10000 ms.

This happens because every member of a channel notifies it that its pin state changed, self member or not. The member panel loads the members of the displayed channel right after the page, and as the user has no member there, the channel then concludes it is not pinned and Discuss opens the first pinned channel of the sidebar. The text typed before that stays on the composer of the channel it was typed in, while the attachments and the send go to the new one.

This commit fixes the issue by notifying the channel only when the pin state of self member changes. The tour also checks the name of the displayed conversation is unchanged before sending, as it succeeds in whichever conversation is displayed.

https://runbot.odoo.com/odoo/error/944617

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280951

Issue:
The MyInvois payload computed `cbc:PrepaidAmount` as `amount_total - amount_residual`, treating every reconciled payment as a prepayment. A payment made on or after the invoice date is an ordinary settlement, not a deposit, but the code recognized it as one anyway. The values reported for `PrepaidAmount` were wrong regardless of the invoice date, and for a fully paid invoice this also collapsed `PayableAmount` to 0.00, which LHDN rejects.

Root Cause:
LHDN only considers a reconciled payment a genuine deposit if it was received before the invoice date. The code applied no date condition at all, so any payment reconciled against the invoice was added to `PrepaidAmount` and reduced `PayableAmount` accordingly.

Fix:
Only sum reconciled payment partials whose date is strictly earlier than the invoice date as prepaid, so regular payments are no longer misclassified as deposits. As a safety net, if the valid prepaid sum still covers the full invoice amount (e.g. a full advance payment), reset it to 0 so `PayableAmount` always reflects the full amount_total instead of being reported as 0. Also omit the `PrepaidPayment` node entirely when there is no genuine prepayment, rather than emitting it with a 0.00 amount.

[Task-6404296](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/my-tasks/6404296)

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280569
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#278010

Steps to reproduce:
- From the website editor, open the Theme tab.
- Upload a custom font.
- Open the media dialog and go to the "Documents" tab.

Issue:
The uploaded font files appeared in the Documents tab. When a zip file was uploaded, every font it contained appeared individually, along with the generated "CSS font face" attachment.

Cause:
Fonts uploaded through `/website/theme_upload_font` are created as public attachments. The Documents tab of the media dialog lists every public attachment that is not an image or an asset, so the font files (mimetype `font/...`), their font face declaration (mimetype `text/css`) and googleFontMetadata (server caches it as public attachment) were listed.

Fix:
Exclude those attachments from the Documents tab domain:
- whose mimetype starts with `font/`,
- whose description matches the font face declarations created in `snippets.options.js`.
- whose name equals "googleFontMetadata".

task-[4771523](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project/974/tasks/4771523)

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280563
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275838

Currently, users encounter a traceback when attempting to print the traceability report for a manufacturing order.

## Steps to produce:
- Install Manufacturing without demo data.
- Enable Lots & Serial Numbers in Settings.
- Create two products: Car and Engine.
- Configure Engine to use Unique Serial Number tracking (Inventory →Traceability).
- Set the on-hand quantity of Engine to 1 with serial number 0001.
- Create a BoM for Car using Engine as a component.
- Create and confirm a manufacturing order for Car.
- Click `Consumed` for the component and click Produce All.
- Navigate to Lots & Serial Numbers → Engine → 0001 → Traceability.
- Click the arrow next to the manufacturing order reference, then click Print.

## Observed Behavior:
An `Arbitrary Uncaught Python Exception` traceback is raised, resulting in a 404 error.

## Root Cause:
This issue occurs because, when the user clicks the arrow button in the traceability report, the template [1] invokes the `onClickUpDownStream` function.

This function adds the URL `/stock/output_format/stock/active_id` to the context , as shown in [2]. Later, when the user clicks the Print button, `onClickPrint()` [3] constructs the print URL using the `controllerUrl` value by replacing the active model and active ID placeholders with values from the context.

However, the URL stored in the context contains `/active_id` instead of `:active_id`. As a result, the placeholder replacement does not occur, leaving the URL unchanged. This causes the print action to use an invalid URL, ultimately resulting in a 404 error.

As shown in [4], `controllerUrl` is assigned directly from the context.

[1]:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/a398ade607940a281552f8cba2c1cf80bb0e77f6/addons/stock/static/src/client_actions/stock_traceability_report_backend.xml#L52-L56 [2]:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/a398ade607940a281552f8cba2c1cf80bb0e77f6/addons/stock/static/src/client_actions/stock_traceability_report_backend.js#L105-L118 [3]:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/a398ade607940a281552f8cba2c1cf80bb0e77f6/addons/stock/static/src/client_actions/stock_traceability_report_backend.js#L120-L131 [4]:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/a398ade607940a281552f8cba2c1cf80bb0e77f6/addons/stock/static/src/client_actions/stock_traceability_report_backend.js#L53-L55

## Solution:
Pass the correct URL in the context so that the active ID placeholder can be replaced correctly during the print action. This ensures that the generated print URL is valid, allowing the user to print the report without encountering any errors.


opw-6372834

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#279844
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276449

**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#280830
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276887

Sending marketing cards from an event can target the wrong event when the selected campaign was designed on a record belonging to another event.

### Steps to reproduce


1. Create a marketing card campaign on model "Event Track". Its "Preview On" record belongs to event A.
2. Open event B and click "Send Cards".
3. Select the campaign.

The recipient domain initially targets event B, but after selecting the campaign it is rebuilt using event A from the preview record. The mailing therefore sends cards to the wrong event.

### Cause


"Send Cards" opens a `mailing.mailing` form. The event the action was started from is only stored in the context through `default_mailing_domain`; it is not stored on the mailing record.

Selecting a campaign recomputes `mailing_domain`, which rebuilds it from the target model default domain, so the event the domain carried is lost. The current code then rebuilds the event restriction using `card_campaign_id.preview_record_ref.event_id`, but this record only represents the campaign preview. It does not represent the event the user is sending cards for, and campaigns can be reused across events.

### Fix


Read the event out of the mailing domain before the super call rebuilds it, and restrict the rebuilt domain to that event. The event then stays with the mailing on any later recompute, without the caller having to pass it.

When the domain restricts no event, which is the case when the mailing is created directly from a campaign, fall back to the preview record event.

opw-6431427

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280073

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Install Accounting and l10n_be and switch to the Belgian company
2. In the settings, set the discount account (`708000`) on Customer Invoices under "Default Accounts" and enable analytic accounting
3. Go to [Accounting -> Configuration -> Analytic Accounts] and create 4 new accounts with "Project" plan (i.e 1,2,3,4)
4. Create a new invoice with two lines, each having 2 of the analytic accounts with 50% each.
5. Set the price to 1000 and a 10% discount for each line then save.
6. Edit the second line and set the discount to 20%.
7. Open the Journal Items tab

**Issue:**
 - When an invoice contains multiple lines with analytic distributions, changing the discount percentage on any line other than the first fails to correctly update the analytic distribution percentages on the corresponding discount journal items.
- The analytic account distribution splits the percentage evenly across both accounts event if they are not split 50/50

**Why this happens:**
- This occurred because `_compute_discount_allocation_needed` iterated over `self` to populate target changes. When only one line was modified, `self` contains that line only which is correctly updated with the new analytic distribution. Later in the execution in `_sync_dynamic_line`, particularly in https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5a14360705a55f4d91edf39c936d7a5d8573044b/addons/account/models/account_move.py#L2263-L2274 The first line in `computed_needed` is what gets set in res, and subsequent lines only modify the field if it's monetary. So if the second invoice line is the one  updated, it will never override the `analytic_distribution` with the updated values, leaving stale values in that field.
- The code iterated directly over `line.analytic_distribution` dictionary keys (the account IDs) rather than its `.items()`. This caused it to ignore the individual percentage value splits (e.g. 60/40), accumulating the un-weighted full discount amount to each account ID. https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5a14360705a55f4d91edf39c936d7a5d8573044b/addons/account/models/account_move_line.py#L1044-L1052

**Fix:**
- Change the processing loop  inside `_compute_discount_allocation_needed` from `self` to `self.move_id.line_ids` to calculate the correct `analytic_distribution` across all records.
- Applying the factored weight ratio (`amount * (percentage / 100.0)`) to `distribution_totals`

opw-6362084

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280302
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275070