When opening reports with `default_opening_date_filter='this_year'`(e.g., P&L, Partner Ledger), the date filter dropdown showed incorrect defaults for non-selected period types:
- Month showed the last month of the fiscal year (e.g., December)
  instead of the current month
- Quarter showed Q4 instead of the current quarter

This happened because `initDateFilterState()` used the backend's `date_to` (fiscal year end) as the reference for computing all filter periods. For `this_year`, `date_to` is the year-end date (e.g., 2026-12-31), so `computePeriodRange()` for month/quarter returned periods containing that date rather than today's date. Reports with `this_month` or `today` defaults were unaffected because their `date_to` is naturally close to today.

Now, non-selected filters use today as their reference date on initial load whenever today falls within the report period, while the selected filter continues to use the backend's `date_to`, preserving the alignment behavior introduced in the date filter refactor (https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/40484f985f511edd7ba2ae759ce63ef564bcf1f7).

Additionally, selecting the custom comparison filter now triggers an immediate reload so its default date range is recomputed by the backend. The custom comparison range is initialized using the current fiscal year up to today, capping its end date to today instead of inheriting the report's `date_to`, which could otherwise default to a future date for yearly reports.

task-6229588

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#127292
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#121638

You'll need two users :
	- Internal User A that can create projects
	- User B with a granted portal access

Optionnal third user to compare the flows :
	- Internal User B that can create tasks in a porject

- With User A, create a new project with atleast a single stage
- Go to the project settings
- Make sure that Visibility is set to : "All internal users and invited portal users"
- Click on Share Project
- Add User B as a new Collaborator with the Edit acess mode
- Confirm by clicking on Share Project
- Still in the project settings, click on the blue user icon in the top right to edit the Followers :
	- Make sure you are following the project
	- Click on the edit button and make sure Task Created is checked

 Optionnal for easiness of testing :
 - Go to the User A settings and in Preferences > Notifications : In Odoo

- Log in with User B (in a new incognito tab on the side is best)
- Go to Projects > The project that has been shared
- Create a new task

No notification is sent to User A. If the same flow is done using User C, then a notification is correctly sent.

The fields that determine to which users the notifications are sent to is `message_follower_ids`. In our case, the value of that field does not contain User A, so no notifcation is sent to them.

The method responsible for assigning values to that field is `_message_auto_subscribe()` which adds follower using subtypes parent relationship. The parent subtype of tasks are projects. So, essentially, we look for followers of the parent project, and see if we can add them to our task.

Before proceeding with the assignation, we check that the parent subtype's field was actually edited :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ea18f34a48d61350f80c79894bef66bf02840bfc/addons/mail/models/mail_thread.py#L4778-L4781

So we look that `updated_values` contains "project_id". `updated_values` is created by the the `mail_thread` create method by joining the values in `vals_list` and the context default variables. In our case, this should be enough since `default_project_id` is provided when creating a task :
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ea18f34a48d61350f80c79894bef66bf02840bfc/addons/mail/models/mail_thread.py#L340-L344

But, a bit before this, the task create method edits the context to replace 'default_project_id' by 'default_create_in_project_id' : https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ea18f34a48d61350f80c79894bef66bf02840bfc/addons/project/models/project_task.py#L1102-L1109

So we do not detect that `project_id` has been changed and don't actually add the followers.

We remove the custom 'default_create_in_project_id` context

opw-6026932

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#278824
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#278353

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

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

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

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

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

Current behavior before PR:

An error access is raised:

Failed to read field account.move.l10n_es_edi_verifactu_document_ids

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

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

Contact your administrator to request access if necessary.


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

Desired behavior after PR is merged:

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


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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280879

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

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

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

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

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

Current behavior before PR:

An error access is raised:

Failed to read field account.move.l10n_es_edi_verifactu_document_ids

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

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

Contact your administrator to request access if necessary.


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

Desired behavior after PR is merged:

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


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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280879

**Description:**
While loading the budget report, the bad queries are created by 
```def _get_aal_query()``` and ```def _get_pol_query()``` function, makes 
the budget report unusable.

**Root cause:**
Instead of doing a hash join while searching the record,
 the OR statement in the Left Join in the condition 
```(%(bl)s IS NULL OR %(a)s = %(bl)s)``` 
creates a nested for loop that compares everything single aal to bl, 
this causes a significant performance issue as the number of the 
number of check will be the the number aal * bl,
if a database has a 70k aal and 20k bl, both numbers are not large
but it will cause a 70k * 20k search which is more than a billion.

**Fix**:
There are some refactors made in this PR.

_First_, separate out the Q1.
In order to find the aal that has no bl connects to it. 
Doing a search to find the aals that have bl and then subtract them from all aals.

_Second_, Instead of doing a nested loop for by using
 ```(%(bl)s IS NULL OR %(a)s = %(bl)s)```, 
originally we will have do something like
```
JOIN budget_line bl
  ON (bl.x_plan2_id IS NULL OR aal.x_plan2_id = bl.x_plan2_id)
 AND (bl.x_plan3_id IS NULL OR aal.x_plan3_id = bl.x_plan3_id)
 AND (bl.x_plan4_id IS NULL OR aal.x_plan4_id = bl.x_plan4_id)
```
Assuming each bl has three plans ```x_plan2_id```, ```x_plan3_id```, ```x_plan4_id```

Grouping the bl base on whether a specific plan is set, (i.e. shapes)
we can skip the ```IS NULL OR``` because we already know which plan
 is null and do the hash join directly.

For example, the shapes will be a dictionary with a key of a tuple of booleans
based on whether a plan is set or not and the value is a list of bl_id.

```
{
    (True, False, False): [1, 2],
    (False, True, True):  [3, 4],
    (False, False, False): [5],
}
```

we can end up doing something like

```
JOIN budget_line bl
 ON bl.id = ANY(ARRAY[3,4])
 AND aal.x_plan3_id = bl.x_plan3_id AND aal.x_plan4_id = bl.x_plan4_id
```
which is way more faster.

---
The benchmark is made locally from this client's database which contains
 69k aal, 23k bl, 6829 pol and 3 plans for aal and bl.

|Record count                                      |Time before|Time after|
|--------------------------------------------------|-----------------|---------------|
|69k aal, 23k bl, 6829 pol, 3 plans    |70.04s         |4.6s            |

Dalibo:

Before: 
Month-over-month grand total by company:
https://explain.dalibo.com/plan/8h3d4e89aaf9f3d4
Overall grand total by company:
https://explain.dalibo.com/plan/445g1f9caf4923e2
Month-over-month grand total by plan: 
https://explain.dalibo.com/plan/53a138ca50b2a7c4
Overall grand total by plan: 
https://explain.dalibo.com/plan/hdbe169ddc7g5785

After: 
Month-over-month grand total by company:
https://explain.dalibo.com/plan/hcc86c801e6872bf
Overall grand total by company:
https://explain.dalibo.com/plan/69b2421a3581f98h
Month-over-month grand total by plan:
https://explain.dalibo.com/plan/a88f398bbbch3148
Overall grand total by plan: 
https://explain.dalibo.com/plan/1gg749ae7ab1553c

opw-6345552

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#127297
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124161

**Description:**
While loading the budget report, the bad queries are created by 
```def _get_aal_query()``` and ```def _get_pol_query()``` function, makes 
the budget report unusable.

**Root cause:**
Instead of doing a hash join while searching the record,
 the OR statement in the Left Join in the condition 
```(%(bl)s IS NULL OR %(a)s = %(bl)s)``` 
creates a nested for loop that compares everything single aal to bl, 
this causes a significant performance issue as the number of the 
number of check will be the the number aal * bl,
if a database has a 70k aal and 20k bl, both numbers are not large
but it will cause a 70k * 20k search which is more than a billion.

**Fix**:
There are some refactors made in this PR.

_First_, separate out the Q1.
In order to find the aal that has no bl connects to it. 
Doing a search to find the aals that have bl and then subtract them from all aals.

_Second_, Instead of doing a nested loop for by using
 ```(%(bl)s IS NULL OR %(a)s = %(bl)s)```, 
originally we will have do something like
```
JOIN budget_line bl
  ON (bl.x_plan2_id IS NULL OR aal.x_plan2_id = bl.x_plan2_id)
 AND (bl.x_plan3_id IS NULL OR aal.x_plan3_id = bl.x_plan3_id)
 AND (bl.x_plan4_id IS NULL OR aal.x_plan4_id = bl.x_plan4_id)
```
Assuming each bl has three plans ```x_plan2_id```, ```x_plan3_id```, ```x_plan4_id```

Grouping the bl base on whether a specific plan is set, (i.e. shapes)
we can skip the ```IS NULL OR``` because we already know which plan
 is null and do the hash join directly.

For example, the shapes will be a dictionary with a key of a tuple of booleans
based on whether a plan is set or not and the value is a list of bl_id.

```
{
    (True, False, False): [1, 2],
    (False, True, True):  [3, 4],
    (False, False, False): [5],
}
```

we can end up doing something like

```
JOIN budget_line bl
 ON bl.id = ANY(ARRAY[3,4])
 AND aal.x_plan3_id = bl.x_plan3_id AND aal.x_plan4_id = bl.x_plan4_id
```
which is way more faster.

---
The benchmark is made locally from this client's database which contains
 69k aal, 23k bl, 6829 pol and 3 plans for aal and bl.

|Record count                                      |Time before|Time after|
|--------------------------------------------------|-----------------|---------------|
|69k aal, 23k bl, 6829 pol, 3 plans    |70.04s         |4.6s            |

Dalibo:

Before: 
Month-over-month grand total by company:
https://explain.dalibo.com/plan/8h3d4e89aaf9f3d4
Overall grand total by company:
https://explain.dalibo.com/plan/445g1f9caf4923e2
Month-over-month grand total by plan: 
https://explain.dalibo.com/plan/53a138ca50b2a7c4
Overall grand total by plan: 
https://explain.dalibo.com/plan/hdbe169ddc7g5785

After: 
Month-over-month grand total by company:
https://explain.dalibo.com/plan/hcc86c801e6872bf
Overall grand total by company:
https://explain.dalibo.com/plan/69b2421a3581f98h
Month-over-month grand total by plan:
https://explain.dalibo.com/plan/a88f398bbbch3148
Overall grand total by plan: 
https://explain.dalibo.com/plan/1gg749ae7ab1553c

opw-6345552

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124161

**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

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#127118
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124162

The original issue coudn't be reproduced. But based on what was reported on the ticket, this should improve the behavior of the order receipt.

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
* Setup the l10n_ke module in 'production' mode
* Make an order in POS and validate it
> Observation: The receipt doesn't contain the SCU information and QR

Why the fix:
------------
Based on the receipt screenshot shared on the ticket (from Odoo 19.3) we can see that some informations are shown on the ticket. The information shown are the one received from the etims api, it means the call went through and the response was received.

As the qrCode URL only needs `l10n_ke_oscu_signature` to be generated, we can assume that if this field is set we can safely generate the URL and generate the QR code.

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/ee7e6894ed313db844aeff5ba5e19de3ad94898e/l10n_ke_edi_oscu_pos/models/pos_order.py#L252-L256

Based on this assumption we can change the condition to return the URL or not based on the presence of `l10n_ke_oscu_signature` instead of the state of the order being `sent`.

In 19.0, the receipt is showing no info at all (when 19.3 is showing some info like the signature). This is also happening because the URL was falsy. And when that is the case we do not show any SCU information

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/ee7e6894ed313db844aeff5ba5e19de3ad94898e/l10n_ke_edi_oscu_pos/static/src/overrides/components/order_receipt/order_receipt.xml#L56

opw-6352120

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

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

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

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

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

Current behavior before PR:

An error access is raised:

Failed to read field account.move.l10n_es_edi_verifactu_document_ids

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

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

Contact your administrator to request access if necessary.


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

Desired behavior after PR is merged:

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


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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280879