Steps to reproduce
------------------
1. Install `l10n_pe_pos`.
2. Create a contact with the identification type DNI and a number.
3. Sell a product to this contact and print the receipt. -> the receipt shows "RUC" in front of the number, even though the number is a DNI and not a RUC.

Why it's happening
------------------
Since `aeaca097ae39` the number of the contact is printed with a label in front of it, before there was no label at all. This label is the `vat_label` of the country, so "RUC" for Peru. But in Peru each contact can have a different identifier, and the type is on the contact in `l10n_latam_identification_type_id`.

The fix
-------
In `l10n_pe_pos` we set `partner_vat_label` with the name of the identification type of the contact. If the contact has no identification type we keep the number alone.

Before vs After for a customer identified with DNI
-------------------------------------------------
<img width="465" height="203" alt="Capture d’écran 2026-07-30 à 14 45 17" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/85c921df-c1fd-430b-b4e6-341bc183bd61" />

<img width="467" height="253" alt="Capture d’écran 2026-07-30 à 14 49 36" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/3ac243c6-04fe-47a4-a662-c59b88276db7" />





opw-6422619

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

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

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

Downloading an attachment from the file viewer fails with a `405 Method Not Allowed` error when the attachment belongs to a Discuss channel.

I've already submitted a ticket to Odoo: #6430586

Steps to reproduce (on a 18.0 runbot):
1. open Discuss and send an image in a channel
2. click the image to open the file viewer
3. click the download button (either the one in the header or the one in the bottom
   toolbar)

The server rejects the request:

```
POST /discuss/channel/1/image/519861?filename=image.png&unique=32647b0f&download=true  405
```

and the user gets a `RPC_ERROR: Arbitrary Uncaught Python Exception` dialog reporting `405 Method Not Allowed`.

Cause: `download()` always issues a POST request, while the routes serving the attachments of a discuss channel only allow GET:

* `/discuss/channel/<int:channel_id>/attachment/<int:attachment_id>`
* `/discuss/channel/<int:channel_id>/image/<int:attachment_id>`

so the request never reaches the controller. Downloading the very same attachment from the attachment card in the conversation still works, because that one is a plain anchor navigation (GET).

This is a regression from fb152985f4b8 ("[FIX] web: download FileViewer files via blob helper"), which routed the file viewer download through `download()` in order to honor the filename sent by the server in the `Content-Disposition` header.

Only 18.0 is affected: saas-18.1 and saas-18.2 do not have the commit that introduced the regression, and from saas-18.3 on, the `urlRoute` override was dropped and channel attachments are served through the standard `/web/content` and  /web/image` routes, which are not restricted to GET. 
The download is still sent with POST on those branches though, hence forward-porting this up to master.

Current behavior before PR:

Downloading a Discuss channel attachment from the file viewer raises a 405 error and the file is not downloaded. Images and other file types are equally affected.

Desired behavior after PR is merged:

The file is downloaded, keeping the filename advertised by the server. The download is performed with a GET request through `downloadFile()`, which still goes through the blob helper, so the fix of fb152985f4b8 is preserved. This is already the way a file is downloaded from its url in `readonly_file.js`.

Added a test that downloads an image attachment of a channel from the file viewer and asserts the request is a GET on the channel attachment route. It fails before this fix with `POST /discuss/channel/1/image/1`.

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#279232