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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#125840

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#125637

`user_domain` (in the context) is supposed to contain the domain defined
by the user (in the search bar). It was not the case for all gantt
views, and produced inconsistent results, as that domain is used to know
when to display the employees without leaves/attendances.

The PR fixes that issue by creating the `HrGanttModel` class, that takes
care of defining the `user_domain` correctly.

This class also disables the *Group By* menu, and defaults to grouping
by employees. This was decided for the following reasons:
- All gantt views inheriting this class would group by employee
- Grouping by other fields would already not work in some cases
- It's very difficult to add employees without records if the gantt is
grouped by multiple fields at once

Affected `_get_gantt_data()` functions have been adapted accordingly

The access models (the ones defined in the `access.csv` files) are
implied, and thus never passed as a parameter to `get_gantt_data()`, so
we need to also manually add them when converting the model to the
related field used in `groupby`

task-5502544

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#126785
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#126156

Issue:
The default Employee grouped Attendance Gantt hides an attendance when its employee has no contract. The record remains accessible from the list view or after removing the default grouping.

Steps to reproduce:
- Create an attendance-based employee without a contract.
- Create an attendance for the employee.
- Open Attendances with the default Date and Employee groupings.

Cause:
In https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/c8c91758b148cced1b7b5c59479fba7aaea033c1/hr_attendance_gantt/models/hr_attendance.py#L151-L164 

`_get_gantt_data_group_by_employee()` builds `employees_on_page` using only employees whose versions overlap the displayed period. It then adds those employee IDs to `attendances_domain`. A contractless employee is therefore excluded before its otherwise valid attendance is fetched.

Solution:
Build the employee visibility domain from employees having either an overlapping contract or an attendance matching the effective Gantt domain. Apply the same domain to the employee query and group count so contractless employees with visible attendances are included while contractless employees without attendances remain hidden.

opw-6416111

## Behavior Before the PR
When an employee did not have explicit `hours_from` and `hours_to` values defined, their shift was in the **Schedule by X** pivot view but was not included in the **Planning / Timesheets Analysis** report.

## Steps to Reproduce
1. Create an employee with a Flexible Working Schedule in the Employee form, or configure working hours where both `Hour from` and `Hour to` are left unset.
2. Add a shift for this employee linked to a project and a task.
3. Publish the shift.
4. Navigate to **Planning → Schedule → By Project**, switch to the pivot view, and observe that the shift created in step 2 appears and is counted.
5. Navigate to **Planning → Reporting → Planning / Timesheets Analysis**, switch to the pivot view, and observe that the same shift does not appear.

## Behavior After the PR
When an employee does not have explicit `hours_from` and `hours_to` values, their shift is now considered valid in both the **Schedule by X** views and the **Planning / Timesheets Analysis** report.

## Additional Notes
- In earlier versions of Odoo, the `Work From` and `Work To` fields were mandatory. With a change to flexible working schedules and the option to define only the total number of hours per day, these fields may now be left empty. This change exposed the underlying issue addressed by this fix.

task-[5969788](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project/4105/tasks/5969788)

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#110606