**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

### 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

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

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

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

**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

**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

### Issue before this commit:
When generating ZUGFeRD or Factur-X electronic invoices, including an HTML hyperlink (such as an email or website) in the document layout caused the final PDF to fail PDF/A validation. Portals would reject the file with the error: "An annotation dictionary does not contain the key F".

### Steps to reproduce the issue:
1. Download Accounting and l10n_de
2. Go to Contacts > set Tax ID for company Bloem GmbH and also for DE company
3. Activate ZUGFeRD from settings
4. Go to settings and click on Configure Document Layout and insert something like <a href="mailto:info@company.de_skr03example.com"> info@company.de_skr03example.com</a> into the footer
5. Create an invoice to Bloem GmbH and send it through ZUGFeRD
6. Download PDF and upload it on https://www.portinvoice.com/
7. See error: An annotation dictionary does not contain the key F. With the exception of annotation dictionaries whose subtype value is Popup, all annotation dictionaries must contain the key F.

### Cause of the issue:
The underlying PDF generation engine creates hyperlinks as PDF annotations but omits the /F (Flags) key. During Odoo's PDF/A conversion process, these annotations were left unmodified. This violates the strict PDF/A specification, which mandates that all non-Popup annotations must explicitly define the /F key.

### Reason to introduce the fix:
This fix ensures full PDF/A compliance by iterating through all page annotations and injecting the missing /F key for any annotation that is not a Popup. This allows users to safely include clickable links in their invoice templates without breaking electronic document validation.

opw-6388212

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#279024

Doing an euclidean division on floats with the native operators is unreliable: because of IEEE-754 representation errors, `value1 % value2` can return a spurious remainder (e.g. `50.4 % 16.8 == 16.799999999999997` instead of 0.0) and `int(value1 / value2)` can truncate the quotient one step too low (e.g. `int(0.3 / 0.1) == 2` instead of 3). `float_div` returns the `(quotient, remainder)` pair free of those errors.

The key is to never run a lossy `%` or `//` on the raw floats. Instead both operands are first snapped onto the precision grid with `float_round` and then scaled to integers: since a grid-snapped value is a multiple of `rounding`, dividing it by `rounding` counts how many grid steps it spans. That division is still noisy (`4.35 / 0.05 == 86.99999999999999`), so the result is passed through `builtins.round` to coerce it to the exact integer step count. The euclidean division itself is then a plain integer `divmod`, which is exact, and the remainder is scaled back to real units. This is why the correction is applied to the inputs and not to the output: rounding the result of a native `%` would only round an already-corrupt value, and would still misreport the quotient in the corner cases the util exists to handle.

Dividing by `rounding` is meaningful for any precision, not only powers of ten: the grid step can be `0.05`, `0.25`, `0.5`, `0.03`, ... and `value / step` counts the steps in every case. This mirrors the normalize/denormalize scheme `float_round` already uses internally.

The util shares `float_round`'s inherent limitation: the scaled step count must stay representable as an exact `float` integer, so exactness is lost past ~2**53 grid steps (extreme magnitudes at a fine precision). This is the IEEE-754 double-precision ceiling and is well outside any realistic quantity or price range.

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280883
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277160

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

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:
- Enable presets and set a preset carrying a tax-replacing fiscal position (e.g. "Takeout") as the default preset of the POS config
- Take an order with another preset that has no fiscal position (e.g. "Dine In")
- Refund that order from the ticket screen

Issue:
The refund is taxed with the fiscal position of the default preset instead of the one of the refunded order. The ticket screen displays the refund lines with the taxes of the original order, but the refund that is actually created maps them through the wrong fiscal position. With tax-included prices the totals still match on screen, so the operator only sees the discrepancy after going back.

Cause:
The destination order of a refund is an empty order, created with the default preset and therefore with that preset's fiscal position. In TicketScreen.onDoRefund, the fiscal position of the refunded order was only copied onto it when the refunded order had one, so an order taken without a fiscal position kept the default preset's one. When an already existing empty order is reused as destination, whatever fiscal position was last set on it survives for the same reason.

Fix:
Always assign the fiscal position of the refunded order to the destination order, an empty one included, so a refund is taxed exactly like the order it refunds instead of silently switching. The preset itself is left untouched: it drives the ordering workflow (timing slot, customer identification) which must not be imposed on a refund.

opw-6442664

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280672

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

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

An issue occurs during the database upgrade
From version 19.2 to 19.3.
During the upgrade, the system attempts to update
the `name` and `rounding` configuration of the Cash Rounding account.

If the Cash Rounding record is linked to
an open POS session, the update fails with
the following constraint error:
```
You are not allowed to change the rounding configuration while a POS session using it is already opened.
```

To avoid this traceback during the upgrade,
set the record's noupdate attribute to True so that it is not modified.

```
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.3/odoo/tools/convert.py", line 485, in _tag_record
    record = model._load_records([data], self.mode == 'update')
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.3/odoo/orm/models.py", line 4566, in _load_records
    data['record']._load_records_write(data['values'])
  File "/tmp/tmpxr_9kp1h/migrations/base/0.0.0/pre-models-load_write.py", line 46, in _load_records_write
    return super()._load_records_write(values)
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.3/odoo/orm/models.py", line 4487, in _load_records_write
    self.write(values)
  File "/home/odoo/src/enterprise/saas-19.3/ai_fields/models/models.py", line 57, in write
    res = super().write(vals)
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/src/enterprise/saas-19.3/ai/models/models.py", line 339, in write
    return super().write(vals)
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.3/odoo/orm/models.py", line 3860, in write
    real_recs._validate_fields(vals, inverse_fields)
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.3/odoo/orm/models.py", line 1295, in _validate_fields
    check(records)
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.3/addons/point_of_sale/models/pos_order.py", line 1575, in _check_session_state
    raise ValidationError(
odoo.exceptions.ValidationError: You are not allowed to change the rounding configuration while a pos session using it is already opened.
```

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

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

**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

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#279716
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276485

Steps:
- Install l10n_co module.
- Set `CO company` on user.
- Go to address page on portal address.
- Set `Company Name`, `ID Type` and `ID Number` on the address page.

Issue:
- Not able to save address without any error message on the address page and in logger it raise validation error.

Cause:
- In address we actually do vat validation before creation/updation and if there is any issue with vat number then add it into invalid_fields instead raising any validation error, so here when user set `Company name` on address it try to create parent company and again do vat validation and it raise validation error because `ID Type` on customer is not propagated to parent when creating parent company from portal.

Fix:
- Skip vat validation on parent company creation from address.

To-do: We also need to pass `ID type` and other accounting related values when creating parent company from customer or make them dependent like `Vat`.

Issued PR: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/264356

opw-6434127

### Issue before this commit:
When generating ZUGFeRD or Factur-X electronic invoices, including an HTML hyperlink (such as an email or website) in the document layout caused the final PDF to fail PDF/A validation. Portals would reject the file with the error: "An annotation dictionary does not contain the key F".

### Steps to reproduce the issue:
1. Download Accounting and l10n_de
2. Go to Contacts > set Tax ID for company Bloem GmbH and also for DE company
3. Activate ZUGFeRD from settings
4. Go to settings and click on Configure Document Layout and insert something like <a href="mailto:info@company.de_skr03example.com"> info@company.de_skr03example.com</a> into the footer
5. Create an invoice to Bloem GmbH and send it through ZUGFeRD
6. Download PDF and upload it on https://www.portinvoice.com/
7. See error: An annotation dictionary does not contain the key F. With the exception of annotation dictionaries whose subtype value is Popup, all annotation dictionaries must contain the key F.

### Cause of the issue:
The underlying PDF generation engine creates hyperlinks as PDF annotations but omits the /F (Flags) key. During Odoo's PDF/A conversion process, these annotations were left unmodified. This violates the strict PDF/A specification, which mandates that all non-Popup annotations must explicitly define the /F key.

### Reason to introduce the fix:
This fix ensures full PDF/A compliance by iterating through all page annotations and injecting the missing /F key for any annotation that is not a Popup. This allows users to safely include clickable links in their invoice templates without breaking electronic document validation.

opw-6388212

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#279024

**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

### Issue before this commit:
When generating ZUGFeRD or Factur-X electronic invoices, including an HTML hyperlink (such as an email or website) in the document layout caused the final PDF to fail PDF/A validation. Portals would reject the file with the error: "An annotation dictionary does not contain the key F".

### Steps to reproduce the issue:
1. Download Accounting and l10n_de
2. Go to Contacts > set Tax ID for company Bloem GmbH and also for DE company
3. Activate ZUGFeRD from settings
4. Go to settings and click on Configure Document Layout and insert something like <a href="mailto:info@company.de_skr03example.com"> info@company.de_skr03example.com</a> into the footer
5. Create an invoice to Bloem GmbH and send it through ZUGFeRD
6. Download PDF and upload it on https://www.portinvoice.com/
7. See error: An annotation dictionary does not contain the key F. With the exception of annotation dictionaries whose subtype value is Popup, all annotation dictionaries must contain the key F.

### Cause of the issue:
The underlying PDF generation engine creates hyperlinks as PDF annotations but omits the /F (Flags) key. During Odoo's PDF/A conversion process, these annotations were left unmodified. This violates the strict PDF/A specification, which mandates that all non-Popup annotations must explicitly define the /F key.

### Reason to introduce the fix:
This fix ensures full PDF/A compliance by iterating through all page annotations and injecting the missing /F key for any annotation that is not a Popup. This allows users to safely include clickable links in their invoice templates without breaking electronic document validation.

opw-6388212

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#279024

When a relational property has a domain the server cannot evaluate, opening its definition editor crashes. The editor calls search_count on that domain to show how many records match, both when it opens and on every later render. The server raises a ValueError and the call has no error handling, so the whole editor goes down. The bad domain stays saved on the property, so reopening the editor fails the same way and the property can no longer be edited or deleted.

Wrap the search_count call in _updateMatchingRecordsCount (property_definition.js) in a try/catch and show no count when it fails. This is the only place the editor counts matching records, so guarding it here handles a bad domain from any source, the field selector or the code editor. The field selector still shows its warning on the invalid path, so the user can fix or delete the property.

Steps to reproduce:
1. On a model that has a Properties field, add a Many2one property and set its Model to a model that itself has a Properties field.
2. Open the property Domain and click New Rule.
3. In the field selector pick the Properties entry, then close the selector.

=> An error dialog appears and the property can no longer be edited or deleted.

Ticket [link](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project.task/6101311)
opw-6101311

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#259886

## Steps to Reproduce:
- Install the Time Off module.
- Create an Accrual Plan without any milestones.
- Create an Accrual Allocation using the newly created accrual plan.
- Approve the allocation.
- Add a milestone to the accrual plan.
- Create a new Time Off request after the allocation start date.
- Save the record.

## Error:
`TypeError - '>' not supported between instances of 'datetime.date' and 'bool'`

## Cause:
`lastcall` is initialized by method `_add_lastcalls()`, which is only called at create and write. When an accrual allocation is created with an accrual plan that has no milestones, `_add_lastcalls()` returns early because `level_ids` is empty, leaving `lastcall` set to `False`. - [1]

If a milestone is added later, `lastcall` is compared with `first_level_start_date`, resulting in a comparison between boolean and datetime, which raises an error.

## Fix:
When `lastcall` is not set, default it to `first_level_start_date`.

[1] - https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/27036bea232572ba692fbb95387911eb453266bf/addons/hr_holidays/models/hr_leave_allocation.py#L703-L706

sentry-7615375197

### Issue before this commit:
When generating ZUGFeRD or Factur-X electronic invoices, including an HTML hyperlink (such as an email or website) in the document layout caused the final PDF to fail PDF/A validation. Portals would reject the file with the error: "An annotation dictionary does not contain the key F".

### Steps to reproduce the issue:
1. Download Accounting and l10n_de
2. Go to Contacts > set Tax ID for company Bloem GmbH and also for DE company
3. Activate ZUGFeRD from settings
4. Go to settings and click on Configure Document Layout and insert something like <a href="mailto:info@company.de_skr03example.com"> info@company.de_skr03example.com</a> into the footer
5. Create an invoice to Bloem GmbH and send it through ZUGFeRD
6. Download PDF and upload it on https://www.portinvoice.com/
7. See error: An annotation dictionary does not contain the key F. With the exception of annotation dictionaries whose subtype value is Popup, all annotation dictionaries must contain the key F.

### Cause of the issue:
The underlying PDF generation engine creates hyperlinks as PDF annotations but omits the /F (Flags) key. During Odoo's PDF/A conversion process, these annotations were left unmodified. This violates the strict PDF/A specification, which mandates that all non-Popup annotations must explicitly define the /F key.

### Reason to introduce the fix:
This fix ensures full PDF/A compliance by iterating through all page annotations and injecting the missing /F key for any annotation that is not a Popup. This allows users to safely include clickable links in their invoice templates without breaking electronic document validation.

opw-6388212

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#279024

Before this commit:
---

Due to changes introduced in the Odoo 18 [`expression.combine`](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/160979/changes#diff-fa4d9268d6e65e19aebec81c46038f0e496b91142588ed4d1c1bce7ff2338f2c) function, an empty domain ([]) is evaluated as True. As a result, [`attendance_domain`](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/1073447ba56e2cc69177ee0ac8eab36d63d907bc/addons/hr_attendance/models/hr_attendance.py#L378), which is initially [], is [OR-ed](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/1073447ba56e2cc69177ee0ac8eab36d63d907bc/addons/hr_attendance/models/hr_attendance.py#L380) with the date conditions, causing the expression True OR X to always evaluate to True.

Consequently, the date filters are never added to the domain, and the final domain becomes:

[('employee_id', '=', 28)]

This causes all attendance records for the employee to be fetched and processed, regardless of the requested date range, unnecessarily increasing computation time.

### Before the fix : 
```python
(Pdb) attendance_domain = []
(Pdb) attendance_date
(datetime.datetime(2026, 8, 3, 18, 30), datetime.date(2026, 8, 4))
(Pdb) attendance_domain = OR([attendance_domain, [('check_in', '>=', attendance_date[0]), ('check_in', '<', attendance_date[0] + timedelta(hours=24)),]])
(Pdb) attendance_domain
[(1, '=', 1)]
(Pdb) attendance_domain = AND([[('employee_id', '=', emp.id)], attendance_domain])
(Pdb) attendance_domain
[('employee_id', '=', 28)]
(Pdb) 
```

After this commit:
---

attendance_domain is initialized with FALSE_DOMAIN instead of an empty domain. This ensures that the OR operation correctly incorporates the date conditions, producing the expected domain and limiting the query to the relevant attendance records.

### After the fix :
```python
(Pdb) attendance_domain = expression.FALSE_DOMAIN
(Pdb) attendance_domain
((0, '=', 1),)
(Pdb) attendance_date
(datetime.datetime(2026, 8, 3, 18, 30), datetime.date(2026, 8, 4))
(Pdb) attendance_domain = OR([attendance_domain, [('check_in', '>=', attendance_date[0]), ('check_in', '<', attendance_date[0] + timedelta(hours=24)),]])
(Pdb) attendance_domain
['&', ('check_in', '>=', datetime.datetime(2026, 8, 3, 18, 30)), ('check_in', '<', datetime.datetime(2026, 8, 4, 18, 30))]
(Pdb) attendance_domain = AND([[('employee_id', '=', emp.id)], attendance_domain])
(Pdb) attendance_domain
['&', ('employee_id', '=', 28), '&', ('check_in', '>=', datetime.datetime(2026, 8, 3, 18, 30)), ('check_in', '<', datetime.datetime(2026, 8, 4, 18, 30))]


```

OPW: 6385811


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

The `modifiers` attribute was used in older Odoo versions to define field properties (invisible, readonly, required, etc.) Since the field already declares these same properties directly [state](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/14.0/addons/account/models/account_move.py#L150-L155) , [amount_tax_signed](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/14.0/addons/account/models/account_move.py#L229)
(e.g. `invisible=...`, `readonly=...`), the `modifiers` attribute is redundant and serves no purpose.

This attribute was never added manually by us — it was auto-generated by Odoo Studio when the default view was created. Studio's default views inject `modifiers` alongside the direct attributes. [Here](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/104741/changes/975e875046691c898e8c1acb87d3626cd299e5aa#diff-dfebe5a93e1b8880e88268b024be4c6f106d144b20298d7bb6c4ae09a18bafd0L67-L145)

Also the `modifiers` attribute was fully simplified [removed](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/104741/changes/975e875046691c898e8c1acb87d3626cd299e5aa#diff-849f1ed2a35a8b0b9cdd67f8e34de5d2ea7bf928103a83828587ba7ec14a62e4L52) starting from version 17.0, where views rely exclusively on direct attribute expressions (`invisible`, `readonly`, `required`) instead of the `modifiers` JSON encoding [main Patch](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/104741) Keeping it around in the arch is therefore dead code with no effect.

However it needs to give the error on 17.0+ like this 
```
ERROR LOG:
<string>:1:0:ERROR:RELAXNGV:RELAXNG_ERR_NOELEM: Expecting an element data, got nothing
<string>:1:0:ERROR:RELAXNGV:RELAXNG_ERR_INVALIDATTR: Invalid attribute modifiers for element field
<string>:1:0:ERROR:RELAXNGV:RELAXNG_ERR_EXTRACONTENT: Element tree has extra content: field

```
As the modifer has been remove from the field [common.rng](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/104741/changes/975e875046691c898e8c1acb87d3626cd299e5aa#diff-849f1ed2a35a8b0b9cdd67f8e34de5d2ea7bf928103a83828587ba7ec14a62e4L52) RelaxNG schema but modifiers set on fields here root tag is **form**, and the modifiers sit on fields inside a nested list. And Form views aren't RNG-validated from 17.0 till now —
[@validate('calendar', 'graph', 'pivot', 'search', 'list', 'activity')](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f0e58b9324af18d0cf0264aec2886d098e997f03/odoo/tools/view_validation.py#L314) has no form, and there's no [form_view.rng](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/tree/19.0/odoo/addons/base/rng).

Current senario
<img width="998" height="415" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/1a678c8f-8401-4e12-826f-9e98f6f2fe20" />

After removing the modifer: it show the same view because of field property
<img width="998" height="415" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/1a678c8f-8401-4e12-826f-9e98f6f2fe20" />

After removing the modifer still it shows the **modifiers="{'readonly':true, 'required':true}"** because the modifer is stay in the 14.0 but the 17.0 onwards it was not please see the scrrenshot its field preprty always.
<img width="1003" height="462" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/5e833924-b17c-417f-9e63-5a01c185f588" />

This Fix removes the unused `modifiers` attribute from the view arch, keeping only the direct attribute already present, with no functional change to the view's behavior.


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#279976