**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

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

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

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

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

opw-6390453

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#125374

### 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