## **Steps to reproduce:**

1. Create a Service product with Create on Order set to Task and Project set to Field service project.
2. Create a Sales Order containing a storable product and a service product.
3. Confirm the Sales Order to generate the project, task, and delivery order.
4. Validate the delivery order.
5. Create and validate a return for the delivery.
6. Create a return of the return to deliver the products again, but do not validate this new delivery.
7. Open the related task and click on Mark as Done button.

## **Issue:**

In a delivery -> return -> return of return workflow, the stock move goes into this code
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/59b86f106862c3a364ba633a1580d9051f2fe7ca/industry_fsm_stock/models/project_task.py#L89-L90 the traversal repeatedly revisits the same stock moves through move_dest_ids, causing the loop to alternate between the same move recordsets indefinitely. As a result, the loop never terminates, eventually exhausting the memory and raising a `MemoryError`.

## **Solution:**

Track the stock moves that have already been visited and continue the traversal only with unseen destination moves.

Runbot Video : [Video](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wiqggjx8T-Mtl4T1JgCsfwBbgQU18nYF/view?usp=drive_link)

OPW - 6420961

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#125962

Bug :
	- create an unvalidated leave
	- on the payrun Time view, when validating the view -> click on continue -> error popup appears says you have unvalidated leave (BUG 1)
	- on the payrun Payslips view, when canceling a payslip , the KPIs values don't change unless you refresh (BUG 2)

Reason :
	- PayRunMixin now subscribes to its model's "update" bus event and forwards it to updatePayRun, so any pay run view whose model emits "update" keeps the summary in sync.

	- The natural trigger is the model's "update" bus event, but the mixin never listened to it. On top of that the relational payslip list never even emits "update" on a programmatic reload: model.load() (cog actions) and root.load() (form close, view-button reloads) rebuild the reactive root without calling notify(), which only fires on search/pager changes. The Time view gantt already worked around this because GanttModel.fetchData() calls notify() itself. 

Fix :
	- Subscribe payroll mixing to the "update" notif that will come from the underlaying models.
	- override the onRootLoad hook in payslipListCOntroller to call notify() which sends an "update" message when loading the data.(added a guarderail: only call the notify on the model if it's mounted)

task - 6387933

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#127045

Steps to reproduce
---
1. Configure a `delivery_easypost` shipping method using the DHL Express carrier.
2. On an international delivery, use Put in Pack to create two or more packages.
3. Validate the delivery.

Issue
---
Validation is blocked with `DHLExpress: rate_error -- DHLExpress multi-shipment rate includes this shipment.`

For an EasyPost multi-shipment order, DHL Express returns the aggregate rate on the first (master) shipment only and adds an informational `rate_error` on the order stating that this rate already covers the whole order, so the remaining shipments carry no rate of their own. The message is not a real error, but `send_shipping` raises on any carrier message whose type is not exempt: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/534b42def8ae5dc884da4398377f828c49557d6e/delivery_easypost/models/easypost_request.py#L359-L364

`_post_process_ship_response` already detects and clears exactly this harmless message, but only for a hardcoded carrier allowlist introduced in a2de5bc5a14 (`Purolator`, `DPD UK`, `UPS`) that was never extended to DHL Express, so for DHL Express the message survives, reaches the raise, and aborts an otherwise valid shipment: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/a2de5bc5a14f99b8674c3ee234e4d221b406da0f/delivery_easypost/models/easypost_request.py#L416-L434

`DHL Express` is added to that allowlist so the harmless multi-shipment `rate_error` is posted on the picking and cleared instead of raised. The guard still requires a single `rate_error` carrying the "multi-shipment rate includes this shipment." text with the rate present only on the master shipment, so genuine DHL Express errors keep blocking validation.

opw-6450365

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#127164

Bug:
	- Create a working sched were one day has less working hours than the rest.
	- when generating a payslip for an employee linked to that working sched , you'll have half-day attendances even though he worked all his days

Reason :
	- in _get_work_hours_split_half , when building work_data, we compare the duration worked by the employee that day not against the contractual amount of that that but instead we use self.resource_calendar_id.hours_per_day or the max hours per day on that working day , so the day with the least contractual hours on that working sched for exemple will fail this condition " float_compare(duration_sum, number_of_hours_full_day, 2) != -1" even if the employee worked that whole day. 

Fix:
	- for fixed scheds : we builed hours_per_dayofweek where we store the hours for each day of the week , later on , we check the weekday and retreive the corresponding official working hours on that day.
	- for variable scheds: because in this case each day can have its own officil working hours , we fetch the official hours of a certain date right before the logic that determines if it's a full or half a day.

task - 6377396

## **Steps to reproduce:**

1. Create a Service product with Create on Order set to Task and Project set to Field service project.
2. Create a Sales Order containing a storable product and a service product.
3. Confirm the Sales Order to generate the project, task, and delivery order.
4. Validate the delivery order.
5. Create and validate a return for the delivery.
6. Create a return of the return to deliver the products again, but do not validate this new delivery.
7. Open the related task and click on Mark as Done button.

## **Issue:**

In a delivery -> return -> return of return workflow, the stock move goes into this code
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/59b86f106862c3a364ba633a1580d9051f2fe7ca/industry_fsm_stock/models/project_task.py#L89-L90 the traversal repeatedly revisits the same stock moves through move_dest_ids, causing the loop to alternate between the same move recordsets indefinitely. As a result, the loop never terminates, eventually exhausting the memory and raising a `MemoryError`.

## **Solution:**

Track the stock moves that have already been visited and continue the traversal only with unseen destination moves.

Runbot Video : [Video](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wiqggjx8T-Mtl4T1JgCsfwBbgQU18nYF/view?usp=drive_link)

OPW - 6420961

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#125962

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#127045

Steps to reproduce
---
1. Configure a `delivery_easypost` shipping method using the DHL Express carrier.
2. On an international delivery, use Put in Pack to create two or more packages.
3. Validate the delivery.

Issue
---
Validation is blocked with `DHLExpress: rate_error -- DHLExpress multi-shipment rate includes this shipment.`

For an EasyPost multi-shipment order, DHL Express returns the aggregate rate on the first (master) shipment only and adds an informational `rate_error` on the order stating that this rate already covers the whole order, so the remaining shipments carry no rate of their own. The message is not a real error, but `send_shipping` raises on any carrier message whose type is not exempt: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/534b42def8ae5dc884da4398377f828c49557d6e/delivery_easypost/models/easypost_request.py#L359-L364

`_post_process_ship_response` already detects and clears exactly this harmless message, but only for a hardcoded carrier allowlist introduced in a2de5bc5a14 (`Purolator`, `DPD UK`, `UPS`) that was never extended to DHL Express, so for DHL Express the message survives, reaches the raise, and aborts an otherwise valid shipment: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/a2de5bc5a14f99b8674c3ee234e4d221b406da0f/delivery_easypost/models/easypost_request.py#L416-L434

`DHL Express` is added to that allowlist so the harmless multi-shipment `rate_error` is posted on the picking and cleared instead of raised. The guard still requires a single `rate_error` carrying the "multi-shipment rate includes this shipment." text with the rate present only on the master shipment, so genuine DHL Express errors keep blocking validation.

opw-6450365

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#127164

## **Steps to reproduce:**

1. Create a Service product with Create on Order set to Task and Project set to Field service project.
2. Create a Sales Order containing a storable product and a service product.
3. Confirm the Sales Order to generate the project, task, and delivery order.
4. Validate the delivery order.
5. Create and validate a return for the delivery.
6. Create a return of the return to deliver the products again, but do not validate this new delivery.
7. Open the related task and click on Mark as Done button.

## **Issue:**

In a delivery -> return -> return of return workflow, the stock move goes into this code
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/59b86f106862c3a364ba633a1580d9051f2fe7ca/industry_fsm_stock/models/project_task.py#L89-L90 the traversal repeatedly revisits the same stock moves through move_dest_ids, causing the loop to alternate between the same move recordsets indefinitely. As a result, the loop never terminates, eventually exhausting the memory and raising a `MemoryError`.

## **Solution:**

Track the stock moves that have already been visited and continue the traversal only with unseen destination moves.

Runbot Video : [Video](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wiqggjx8T-Mtl4T1JgCsfwBbgQU18nYF/view?usp=drive_link)

OPW - 6420961

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#125962

### This is a revision of #119399 which had to be reverted.

Original issue
-----
Deliveries cannot be validated using DPD with Sendcloud, users get an error.

Steps to reproduce
-----
- Set up Sendcloud DPD
- Create a SO
	- Interntional customer
		- Some VAT number
	- Some product
	- Add sendcloud delivery
- Confirm SO
- Validate the linked picking

> Error: “The receiver VAT number is missing; please provide it to continue”

Issue's cause
-----
Tax numbers should be included in the `customs_information` field of the request as per the API

https://sendcloud.dev/api/v2/parcels/create-a-parcel-or-parcels#body-one-of-0-parcel-customs-information-tax-numbers

For the `vat_label` field, we have to force the language to English in the context because the field is translated by default, but sendcloud only accepts the english names (eg French "TVA" is not accepted, expected value is "VAT").

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/d1d1610332a1596d026fb0a42ec236d1a79c71cc/odoo/addons/base/models/res_country.py#L75

Revert cause
-----
The vat_label field is marked for translation (translate=True)

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/d1d1610332a1596d026fb0a42ec236d1a79c71cc/odoo/addons/base/models/res_country.py#L75

So if the user has the DB in french for example, we are sending "TVA" instead of "VAT" in the name field.

Other issues
-----
- We need to provide an actual fallback for `customs_invoice_nr`. As it stands, if we create a new delivery it cannot be validated because Sendcloud doesn't accept for the field to be empty.
- Same for `name`, we need to provide an actual fallback.

-----
Ticket:
opw-6250860

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#126351
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124245

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#127045

### Steps to Reproduce:
1. Go to Helpdesk and create an SLA
2. Create a new Ticket
3. Use Studio to add the field `sla_reached`
4. Apply the SLA
5. Notice that the field is True

### Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:
**Issue:** The `_compute_sla_reached` method in on `helpdesk_ticket.py` determines whether an SLA has been reached by checking if `exceeded_hours` is less than 0 on its `helpdesk.sla.status` records. Since every newly assigned SLA has a future deadline, `exceeded_hours` starts as negative (AKA <0), so the ticket is immediately flagged as `sla_reached = True` before any progress has been made. Conversely, a ticket that reaches its target stage after the deadline has `exceeded_hours >= 0`, so it's incorrectly flagged as `sla_reached = False` even though the SLA target was genuinely reached (it was just late).

**Solution:** Change the domain in `_compute_sla_reached` to check `reached_datetime != False` instead of `exceeded_hours < 0`, matching the field already listed in the method's `@api.depends` and the same field `_sla_reach()` sets when a ticket enters its target stage. This makes `sla_reached` reflect actual stage progression rather than a time-remaining calculation.

### Current behavior before PR: 
A newly created ticket with a pending SLA shows `sla_reached = True` and `sla_success = True` immediately upon creation, before the ticket has moved to any target stage. SImilarly, a ticket that reaches its target stage after the SLA deadline is incorrectly marked `sla_reached = False`.

### Desired behavior after PR: 
`sla_reached` is False on ticket creation and only becomes True once the ticket actually enters the SLA's target stage. Lateness continues to be tracked separately and correctly via `sla_reached_late`

opw-6361851

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#126432

Steps to reproduce
---
1. Configure a `delivery_easypost` shipping method using the DHL Express carrier.
2. On an international delivery, use Put in Pack to create two or more packages.
3. Validate the delivery.

Issue
---
Validation is blocked with `DHLExpress: rate_error -- DHLExpress multi-shipment rate includes this shipment.`

For an EasyPost multi-shipment order, DHL Express returns the aggregate rate on the first (master) shipment only and adds an informational `rate_error` on the order stating that this rate already covers the whole order, so the remaining shipments carry no rate of their own. The message is not a real error, but `send_shipping` raises on any carrier message whose type is not exempt: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/534b42def8ae5dc884da4398377f828c49557d6e/delivery_easypost/models/easypost_request.py#L359-L364

`_post_process_ship_response` already detects and clears exactly this harmless message, but only for a hardcoded carrier allowlist introduced in a2de5bc5a14 (`Purolator`, `DPD UK`, `UPS`) that was never extended to DHL Express, so for DHL Express the message survives, reaches the raise, and aborts an otherwise valid shipment: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/a2de5bc5a14f99b8674c3ee234e4d221b406da0f/delivery_easypost/models/easypost_request.py#L416-L434

`DHL Express` is added to that allowlist so the harmless multi-shipment `rate_error` is posted on the picking and cleared instead of raised. The guard still requires a single `rate_error` carrying the "multi-shipment rate includes this shipment." text with the rate present only on the master shipment, so genuine DHL Express errors keep blocking validation.

opw-6450365

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#127164

## **Steps to reproduce:**

1. Create a Service product with Create on Order set to Task and Project set to Field service project.
2. Create a Sales Order containing a storable product and a service product.
3. Confirm the Sales Order to generate the project, task, and delivery order.
4. Validate the delivery order.
5. Create and validate a return for the delivery.
6. Create a return of the return to deliver the products again, but do not validate this new delivery.
7. Open the related task and click on Mark as Done button.

## **Issue:**

In a delivery -> return -> return of return workflow, the stock move goes into this code
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/59b86f106862c3a364ba633a1580d9051f2fe7ca/industry_fsm_stock/models/project_task.py#L89-L90 the traversal repeatedly revisits the same stock moves through move_dest_ids, causing the loop to alternate between the same move recordsets indefinitely. As a result, the loop never terminates, eventually exhausting the memory and raising a `MemoryError`.

## **Solution:**

Track the stock moves that have already been visited and continue the traversal only with unseen destination moves.

Runbot Video : [Video](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wiqggjx8T-Mtl4T1JgCsfwBbgQU18nYF/view?usp=drive_link)

OPW - 6420961

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#125962

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------------------------------------
1. Install the `sale_project` module
2. Create a test user with Project User rights
3. Create a Project Role with the Created User as a Team Member
4. Create a Template Project as follows:
    * Add one task to the template project
    * Add the created Project role to the Task
5. Create a Service Type Product with:
    * Create on order: Project
    * Project Template: Created Template
6. Archive the Created User
7. Create and Confirm the Sale Order with the Created Product

Observation:
-------------------------------------------------
The generated task is assigned to the archived user, although the archived user is no longer part of the Project Role.

Issue:
-------------------------------------------------
While creating Project and Tasks from template, the context disable active record filtering (e.g., `active_test=False`), causing the assignment logic to fetch both active and inactive/archived users linked to the role. https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/8ec646e51497b38d34ea59296e0fc8644a50ee3a/odoo/orm/models.py#L4868

After that, during the `copy_data` method, It takes all the users from the roles without checking weather user is active or not
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/8ec646e51497b38d34ea59296e0fc8644a50ee3a/addons/project/models/project_task.py#L890-L904

And even if we pass only Active users from this method, on moving further, it reassigns the users from roles without checking the Active field of the user

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/5abb147f9bf725daafc202d8259a5bb8a9b78d94/project_enterprise/models/project_task.py#L501-L503

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/5abb147f9bf725daafc202d8259a5bb8a9b78d94/project_enterprise/models/project_task.py#L544-L553

Due to this, the Archived User is also assigned to the tasks from the project roles

Solution:
-------------------------------------------------
Apply a `filtered('active')` check directly on the project role's users `(role.user_ids)` within the core task-copying logic in both `project` and `project_enterprise` modules. This ensures archived users are universally excluded from task assignments during template copying, regardless of what triggers the template instantiation.

Related Community PR: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/274426

opw-6350841

### Steps to Reproduce:
1. Go to Helpdesk and create an SLA
2. Create a new Ticket
3. Use Studio to add the field `sla_reached`
4. Apply the SLA
5. Notice that the field is True

### Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:
**Issue:** The `_compute_sla_reached` method in on `helpdesk_ticket.py` determines whether an SLA has been reached by checking if `exceeded_hours` is less than 0 on its `helpdesk.sla.status` records. Since every newly assigned SLA has a future deadline, `exceeded_hours` starts as negative (AKA <0), so the ticket is immediately flagged as `sla_reached = True` before any progress has been made. Conversely, a ticket that reaches its target stage after the deadline has `exceeded_hours >= 0`, so it's incorrectly flagged as `sla_reached = False` even though the SLA target was genuinely reached (it was just late).

**Solution:** Change the domain in `_compute_sla_reached` to check `reached_datetime != False` instead of `exceeded_hours < 0`, matching the field already listed in the method's `@api.depends` and the same field `_sla_reach()` sets when a ticket enters its target stage. This makes `sla_reached` reflect actual stage progression rather than a time-remaining calculation.

### Current behavior before PR: 
A newly created ticket with a pending SLA shows `sla_reached = True` and `sla_success = True` immediately upon creation, before the ticket has moved to any target stage. SImilarly, a ticket that reaches its target stage after the SLA deadline is incorrectly marked `sla_reached = False`.

### Desired behavior after PR: 
`sla_reached` is False on ticket creation and only becomes True once the ticket actually enters the SLA's target stage. Lateness continues to be tracked separately and correctly via `sla_reached_late`

opw-6361851

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#126432

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#127045

Steps to reproduce
---
1. Configure a `delivery_easypost` shipping method using the DHL Express carrier.
2. On an international delivery, use Put in Pack to create two or more packages.
3. Validate the delivery.

Issue
---
Validation is blocked with `DHLExpress: rate_error -- DHLExpress multi-shipment rate includes this shipment.`

For an EasyPost multi-shipment order, DHL Express returns the aggregate rate on the first (master) shipment only and adds an informational `rate_error` on the order stating that this rate already covers the whole order, so the remaining shipments carry no rate of their own. The message is not a real error, but `send_shipping` raises on any carrier message whose type is not exempt: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/534b42def8ae5dc884da4398377f828c49557d6e/delivery_easypost/models/easypost_request.py#L359-L364

`_post_process_ship_response` already detects and clears exactly this harmless message, but only for a hardcoded carrier allowlist introduced in a2de5bc5a14 (`Purolator`, `DPD UK`, `UPS`) that was never extended to DHL Express, so for DHL Express the message survives, reaches the raise, and aborts an otherwise valid shipment: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/a2de5bc5a14f99b8674c3ee234e4d221b406da0f/delivery_easypost/models/easypost_request.py#L416-L434

`DHL Express` is added to that allowlist so the harmless multi-shipment `rate_error` is posted on the picking and cleared instead of raised. The guard still requires a single `rate_error` carrying the "multi-shipment rate includes this shipment." text with the rate present only on the master shipment, so genuine DHL Express errors keep blocking validation.

opw-6450365

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#127164

Problem:
On a flexible working schedule, a time off of a few hours (neither a full nor a half day) was treated as a full day off. The Attendance list then reported the whole day's attendance as overtime, and the Time Off gantt grayed out the entire day instead of only the leave's hours.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Give an employee a flexible working schedule (e.g. 8h/day) with an overtime ruleset based on the contract's expected hours.
2. Record a 2-hour time off, then an 8-hour attendance on the same day.
3. Observe the attendance reports 8 hours of overtime instead of 2.

Current behavior:
A partial time off makes the whole day count as extra hours.

Expected behavior:
Only the hours actually taken off reduce the day's expected hours.

Cause:
For a flexible schedule, _handle_flexible_leave_interval expands a leave to the whole day. The override already narrows full-day and half-day leaves, but any other number of hours fell through to that full-day expansion. The expanded interval is subtracted from the day's expected hours in _work_intervals_batch, so they drop to zero and every worked hour becomes overtime.

Fix:
A leave of an arbitrary number of hours should only remove the hours it actually covers, so it keeps its requested interval instead of being stretched to the whole day.

opw-6291536

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123778

### Steps to Reproduce:
1. Go to Helpdesk and create an SLA
2. Create a new Ticket
3. Use Studio to add the field `sla_reached`
4. Apply the SLA
5. Notice that the field is True

### Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:
**Issue:** The `_compute_sla_reached` method in on `helpdesk_ticket.py` determines whether an SLA has been reached by checking if `exceeded_hours` is less than 0 on its `helpdesk.sla.status` records. Since every newly assigned SLA has a future deadline, `exceeded_hours` starts as negative (AKA <0), so the ticket is immediately flagged as `sla_reached = True` before any progress has been made. Conversely, a ticket that reaches its target stage after the deadline has `exceeded_hours >= 0`, so it's incorrectly flagged as `sla_reached = False` even though the SLA target was genuinely reached (it was just late).

**Solution:** Change the domain in `_compute_sla_reached` to check `reached_datetime != False` instead of `exceeded_hours < 0`, matching the field already listed in the method's `@api.depends` and the same field `_sla_reach()` sets when a ticket enters its target stage. This makes `sla_reached` reflect actual stage progression rather than a time-remaining calculation.

### Current behavior before PR: 
A newly created ticket with a pending SLA shows `sla_reached = True` and `sla_success = True` immediately upon creation, before the ticket has moved to any target stage. SImilarly, a ticket that reaches its target stage after the SLA deadline is incorrectly marked `sla_reached = False`.

### Desired behavior after PR: 
`sla_reached` is False on ticket creation and only becomes True once the ticket actually enters the SLA's target stage. Lateness continues to be tracked separately and correctly via `sla_reached_late`

opw-6361851

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#126432

mark_urbanpiper_prep_order_as_printed() raised ValueError when the
'urbanpiper_printed' flag was already set, to stop the same order from
printing its preparation ticket twice (https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/103894,
Task-5353283).

Accepting an UrbanPiper order fires this RPC from two places for the
same order: synchronously from TicketScreen, and again via the
DELIVERY_ORDER_COUNT bus notification the accept flow itself
broadcasts. Under load, both requests race for the row lock; Odoo's
retrying() replays the loser on lock contention, and by the time it
replays the winner has already committed, so the loser hits the
already-printed branch and raises. The raise is an unhandled
ValueError, so it surfaces as a 500 and fails any tour that accepts
an order (test_frontend.py, test_order_receipt.py),
intermittently and CI-timing-dependent only.

The only caller (pos_store.js: _sendDeliveryOrderForPreparation)
already wraps the RPC in try/catch and treats a caught exception
exactly like a falsy return value: either way it just skips sending
the ticket to preparation. No other code reads or writes
urbanpiper_printed, and no webhook path calls this method, so
returning False is behaviorally identical for every real caller and
safe to make the default.

This also removes the mark_urbanpiper_prep_order_as_printed_patch
monkeypatch added alongside the original raise in test_01_order_flow:
it existed solely to swallow this exact ValueError for that one tour,
which is no longer needed now that the method itself is idempotent.

runbot error: 941514

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Configure Payment Term (Accounting > Configuration > Payment Terms) containing multiple installments.
2. Create a Customer Invoice with this Payment Term.
3. Post the invoice.
4. Register a payment and fully reconcile one of the installments.
5. Navigate to the customer's Follow-Up Report (Accounting > Reporting > Partner Ledger > Report: Follow-Up Report).
6. Navigate to remaining open installment/account move line for that invoice.
7. Turn On or Off the No Follow-Up toggle for the invoice.

An error occurs when enabling or disabling the No Follow-Up toggle.

Issue:
Enabling or disabling the No Follow-Up toggle on a remaining open installment in the Follow-Up Report raises a server error when the invoice contains multiple installments and one or more installments are already fully reconciled.

Root Cause:
The Follow-Up Report only loads and sends non-fully reconciled account move lines from the JavaScript side through all_line_ids. In action_toggle_no_followup(), when the selected line belongs to an invoice, the code retrieves all receivable/payable lines of the invoice, including fully reconciled installments:

```
move.line_ids.filtered(
    lambda line: line.account_type in ('asset_receivable', 'liability_payable'),
)
```

The method then attempts to map every receivable/payable line to a report line ID using aml_id_to_line_id. Since fully reconciled installments are not present in all_line_ids, they are missing from the mapping dictionary, causing a KeyError when accessing:

`aml_id_to_line_id[line.id]
`

Fix:
Restricted the impacted lines to those present in the report by adding a check that the account move line exists in aml_id_to_line_id before performing the mapping:

```
lambda line: line.account_type in ('asset_receivable', 'liability_payable')
             and line.id in aml_id_to_line_id
```


opw-6245448

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#126156

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Configure Payment Term (Accounting > Configuration > Payment Terms) containing multiple installments.
2. Create a Customer Invoice with this Payment Term.
3. Post the invoice.
4. Register a payment and fully reconcile one of the installments.
5. Navigate to the customer's Follow-Up Report (Accounting > Reporting > Partner Ledger > Report: Follow-Up Report).
6. Navigate to remaining open installment/account move line for that invoice.
7. Turn On or Off the No Follow-Up toggle for the invoice.

An error occurs when enabling or disabling the No Follow-Up toggle.

Issue:
Enabling or disabling the No Follow-Up toggle on a remaining open installment in the Follow-Up Report raises a server error when the invoice contains multiple installments and one or more installments are already fully reconciled.

Root Cause:
The Follow-Up Report only loads and sends non-fully reconciled account move lines from the JavaScript side through all_line_ids. In action_toggle_no_followup(), when the selected line belongs to an invoice, the code retrieves all receivable/payable lines of the invoice, including fully reconciled installments:

```
move.line_ids.filtered(
    lambda line: line.account_type in ('asset_receivable', 'liability_payable'),
)
```

The method then attempts to map every receivable/payable line to a report line ID using aml_id_to_line_id. Since fully reconciled installments are not present in all_line_ids, they are missing from the mapping dictionary, causing a KeyError when accessing:

`aml_id_to_line_id[line.id]
`

Fix:
Restricted the impacted lines to those present in the report by adding a check that the account move line exists in aml_id_to_line_id before performing the mapping:

```
lambda line: line.account_type in ('asset_receivable', 'liability_payable')
             and line.id in aml_id_to_line_id
```


opw-6245448

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#126156

Root cause:
For an employee on a flexible working schedule, the weekly overtime shown in the timesheet grid compares the entered total against the full time equivalent of the schedule instead of its own weekly hours. The target is sent by _count_daily_working_hours:

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/27f3a05ca8a5ad6e8d4537dac4f613e60931f0cd/timesheet_grid/models/hr_employee.py#L117-L119

It reads full_time_required_hours, but since https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/5cb102546ea4370b4fe5e4a4f37cccdc90c263fd this field holds the company full time reference used to compute the work time rate, and the hours the schedule actually expects per week are on hours_per_week. So for a part time schedule at 80% of a 42 hours full time, the grid expects 42 hours instead of 33h36 and the weekly total shows in red with a wrong negative overtime.

Fix:
In _count_daily_working_hours, send the hours_per_week of the calendar as the weekly target and keep full_time_required_hours as a fallback when it is not set. For a full time schedule both fields hold the same value so nothing changes there. The result key stays the same so the grid renderers need no change.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Go to Employees > Configuration > Working Schedules and create a schedule with Schedule Type Flexible, Full Time Equivalent 42:00 and Total 33:36 hours per week
2. Assign this schedule to an employee linked to a user
3. As that user, go to Timesheets > My Timesheets
4. On a past week, log 6:44 on Monday and 6:43 from Tuesday to Friday on a project
5. Check the Time Spent weekly total

=> the weekly total 33:36 shows in red with a -8:24 overtime while the employee worked exactly the 33h36 expected by the schedule

Ticket [link](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project.task/6352965)

opw-6352965

Since `company_id` on `worksheet.template` changed due to this a973d7d from a Many2many to a Many2one field.

For example, in v17, a single worksheet template linked to 3 companies via the m2m field was returned as 1 record when opening Design Template. After the upgrade in v18, company_id became m2o, and the same data is split into 3 separate records (one per company).

When trying to add a customization via Studio, the search [fetches](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/18.0/worksheet/controllers/main.py#L12) records based on the model set on the worksheet. In the new version, Studio
[creates](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/18.0/worksheet/models/worksheet_template.py#L112)
 a new model, but for existing records the
model is the same across the 3 worksheet records tied to the same template. This causes the search to match all 3 records and raise a SingletonError.

```py
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/odoo/http.py", line 2856, in __call__
    response = request._serve_db()
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/odoo/http.py", line 2331, in _serve_db
    raise self._update_served_exception(exc)
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/odoo/http.py", line 2329, in _serve_db
    return service_model.retrying(serve_func, env=self.env)
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/odoo/service/model.py", line 188, in retrying
    result = func()
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/odoo/http.py", line 2384, in _serve_ir_http
    response = self.dispatcher.dispatch(rule.endpoint, args)
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/odoo/http.py", line 2599, in dispatch
    result = self.request.registry['ir.http']._dispatch(endpoint)
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/odoo/addons/base/models/ir_http.py", line 353, in _dispatch
    result = endpoint(**request.params)
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/odoo/http.py", line 838, in route_wrapper
    result = endpoint(self, *args, **params_ok)
  File "/home/odoo/src/enterprise/19.0/industry_fsm_report/controllers/main.py", line 9, in edit_view
    action = super().edit_view(view_id, studio_view_arch, operations, model, context)
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/odoo/http.py", line 838, in route_wrapper
    result = endpoint(self, *args, **params_ok)
  File "/home/odoo/src/enterprise/19.0/worksheet/controllers/main.py", line 17, in edit_view
    worksheet_template_to_change._generate_qweb_report_template()
  File "/home/odoo/src/enterprise/19.0/worksheet/models/worksheet_template.py", line 490, in _generate_qweb_report_template
    new_arch = self._get_qweb_arch(worksheet_template.model_id, report_name, form_view_id)
  File "/home/odoo/src/enterprise/19.0/worksheet/models/worksheet_template.py", line 460, in _get_qweb_arch
    if 'name' in row_node.attrib and row_node.attrib['name'] not in self._get_qweb_arch_omitted_fields() and row_node.attrib['name'] in form_view_fields:
  File "/home/odoo/src/enterprise/19.0/worksheet/models/worksheet_template.py", line 378, in _get_qweb_arch_omitted_fields
    'x_%s_id' % self.res_model.replace('.', '_'), 'x_name',  # redundant
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/odoo/orm/fields.py", line 1657, in __get__
    record.ensure_one()
  File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/19.0/odoo/orm/models.py", line 5942, in ensure_one
    raise ValueError("Expected singleton: %s" % self)
ValueError: Expected singleton: worksheet.template(3, 14, 18)
```

OPW: 6389190

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
1. Install `l10n_mx_edi_pos` and set the company to Mexico.
2. In PoS, make an order with one product and pay it.
3. Open the order in the backend, click "Return Products" to make a refund, but don't pay it, cancel it instead.
4. From the same order, click "Return Products" again to make a second refund, and pay it normally.
5. Go to the orders list, select the main order and the paid refund (not the cancelled one), then Actions > Create Global Invoice.

-> Observation: error in the global invoice.

In the CFDI tab of the main order the line is "Send Global In Error", and hovering on it the detail says "Failed to distribute some negative lines".

Why:
----
When we make the global invoice, we remove the refunds from the order. A cancelled refund was never paid, so we should not count it. But we were counting it too. So we removed the refund amount twice in our case, one for the paid refund, and one for the cancelled one, and we end up with an order with negative amount that cannot be distributed.

The fix:
--------
We now skip the cancelled orders when we search the refunds, the same way it is done above when we collect the refunded orders.

opw-6261404