### Expected behavior:
When an e-invoice is created from POS using SInvoice, existing behavior is to directly submit it

### Current behavior:
When a POS order with "Invoice" ticked is confirmed in a VN company, the e-invoice is NOT automatically submitted to SInvoice. Users must manually trigger the send wizard.

### Steps to reproduce:
1. Install l10n_vn_edi_viettel_pos, activate VN company
2. Make an order from POS and check the invoice box
3. Observe SInvoice subsmission error

### Cause of the issue:
- caused by commit https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/4f30306ccc9ff82911f90ed8b3714b212e4b77dc, which decoupled invoice PDF generation from POS order validation by setting `generate_pdf=False` in context when `use_download_invoice` is False (default)
- `_generate_pos_order_invoice()` to skip `_generate_and_send()`, which skips VN SInvoice submission.

### Fix:
Override `_generate_pos_order_invoice()` to force generating PDF when auto-send to SInvoice is enabled, restoring `_generate_and_send()` during order validation

opw-6427675

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
1. Install `hr` module
2. Create two employees (e.g., emp1 and emp2) and assign
   emp1 as the manager of emp2
   → emp2 is now a direct subordinate of emp1
3. In the employee list view, apply the custom filter
   "Direct subordinates is set" (child_ids != False)
   → emp1 appears in the results as expected
4. Archive emp2
5. Apply the same filter again
   → emp1 still appears in the results even though it has
   no active subordinates

Issue:
------
When an employee (e.g., `emp2`) is archived, their manager (`emp1`) should no longer appear in the "Direct subordinates is set" (child_ids != False) filter — since `emp1` no longer has any active subordinates.

However, `emp1` still appears in the search results after `emp2` is archived, because the underlying EXISTS subquery checks all subordinates regardless of their active state.

Cause:
--------
Before this commit 5ef007a, `osv.expression`, filtering on a One2many field would automatically
search against [active co-records ](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5f65e92d7fa341193df53f5aba1620b596f9a1ec/odoo/osv/expression.py#L1260-L1265)only by default.

After that commit, the `condition_to_sql` method in `_RelationalMulti` constructs the comodel with [active_test=False](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/463ca4cf867812890c17d1e1abf7640b04f70ad0/odoo/orm/fields_relational.py#L672-L686) when resolving relational field conditions. This causes the EXISTS subquery generated for `child_ids != False` to compare against all subordinates. (including archived ones rather than active ones only).

Solution:
---------
Added a callable `domain` attribute on the `child_ids` field definition so that only active subordinates are considered by default. This ensures [get_comodel_domain()](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/2d8b24a791b6fe6bb214c32d4fb58b3d46eca70b/odoo/orm/fields_relational.py#L75-L85) returns a server-side domain that filters out archived subordinates, making the `child_ids != False` filter behave as expected.




opw-6193104



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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#281222
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#266658

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

Installing Odoo via the .deb package continuously causes issues with the asset bundles. This is because of the following daisy chain of behaviors:

- `dpkg-buildpackage` parses `SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH` from debian/changelog and then clamps the Modified date of all files to at max that epoch ([src](https://launchpad.net/debian/+source/dpkg/1.18.8)). The relevate date is the one written after the email in the topmost changelog entry
- This is preserved when unpacking the .deb package, the OS does not change it
- The Asset loading logic in ir.qweb and ir.asset relies on the Modified date (via [`os.path.getmtime`](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/17.0/odoo/addons/base/models/ir_asset.py#L49)) to determine the hash that serves a Version for the asset bundles ([src](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/17.0/odoo/addons/base/models/assetsbundle.py#L775), [src](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/17.0/odoo/addons/base/models/assetsbundle.py#L148))
- The controller and ir.qweb compiler rely on this Version hash to correctly invalidate outdated asset bundles and force re-generation of the bundle content as neccessary

Current behavior before PR:

debian/changelog has not been changed or maintained since 2020 and its timestamp remains `Tue, 15 Dec 2020 10:28:49 +0100` This results in the Modified Date being clamped to 2020, which means the files no matter how much is changed always look like last modified on this date. Therefore the Version hash for the asset bundles never changes, and the asset reload logic does not trigger correctly.
This is especially dangerous for setups which use several code sources with different file delivery methods, for example installing Community via .deb but Enterprise via git. This results in only some asset bundles not being updated (those not touched by Enterprise modules) while others are, which then generates an OWL error as it detects the content being different between the bundles ([src](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/17.0/addons/web/static/lib/owl/owl.js#L3333))
For versions 18+, a very common result of this behavior is the portal chatter failing to work. This is because the same files like for example mail/static/src/core/common/thread.xml being loaded into both [`portal.assets_chatter`](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/18.0/addons/portal/__manifest__.py#L69), which is not touched by an Enterprise module, but also into [`web.assets_frontend`
](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/18.0/addons/im_livechat/__manifest__.py#L90) via im_livechat, which is a bundle touched by many modules, including Enterprise modules. Thus, is a file in the mail addon is changed, the changes are correctly applied to `web.assets_frontend`, but not `portal.assets_chatter`, causing an OWL error. This is extremely frustrating to fix, since it not only requires a manual Asset Rebuild, but also for every user to empty their Browser Cache, since the assets bundles are so large as to be guaranteed to be cached, and if the old version of the bundle is loaded from cache, the OWL error persists. A similar error can also happen with website, since the assets for the WYSIWIG editor are loaded as a module-specific bundle, `website.assets_wysiwyg`, which also fails to update, while of course the same assets being loaded to the general website asset bundle will be updated.

Desired behavior after PR is merged:

The builder for the nightly .deb package of Odoo writes a complete debian/changelog entry instead of merely replacing the first line. This entry includes the current date, thus ensuring the Modified date for the files is not clamped to years in the past. Down the line, this fixes the assets loading issue.


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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#269458

## Steps to reproduce:
	- Install Employee
	- Create a 2-week working schedule and set it as the company default
	- Try to create a new working schedule
	- Notice when you click save a ValidationErroe arise


## Cause:
Two parts where causing this. First when creating a new calendar and
we try to fetch default attendances we don't set the sequence in the
newly created attendances

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b51dc298fd63d9586d0b8d7cff59764b0dee5cae/addons/resource/models/resource_calendar.py#L735-L749

so it will get the default value which is 10 so when calling onchange for 
the attendance_ids_1st_week and attendance_ids_2nd_week each attendance
will be set to the odd_week_seq

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b51dc298fd63d9586d0b8d7cff59764b0dee5cae/addons/resource/models/resource_calendar.py#L184-L200

which will then make this condition fail

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b51dc298fd63d9586d0b8d7cff59764b0dee5cae/addons/resource/models/resource_calendar.py#L615-L616

Second part was related to the `two_weeks_calendar` when saving,
its value won't be passed to the vals_list in `web_save()` as when
we read the values to be changed we ignore readonly fields and since
two_weeks_calendar was used in invisible condition but isn't defined
in a separate `<field>` the view create a tag for it

`
<field name='two_weeks_calendar' invisible='True' readonly='True' data-used-by='invisible='flexible_hours or not two_weeks_calendar' (page,working_hours)' on_change='1'/>
`
This tag would be readonly by default so when the ArchParser
gets each field's info it puts `two_weeks_calendar` as a readonly
field and ignore it in the creation values

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b51dc298fd63d9586d0b8d7cff59764b0dee5cae/addons/web/static/src/views/fields/field.js#L276-L279

which then fails this condition and pass all the 2 weeks attendances in the else condition

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b51dc298fd63d9586d0b8d7cff59764b0dee5cae/addons/resource/models/resource_calendar.py#L134-L138

After fixing this another bug was found where if you saved the calendar
the attendances will disappear. This was happening when we create the
resource.calendar.attendance records it will call the inverse method
of the attendance_ids_1st_week and attendance_ids_2nd_week where they are
still not computed so it will set attendance_ids to empty

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b51dc298fd63d9586d0b8d7cff59764b0dee5cae/addons/resource/models/resource_calendar.py#L152-L156

so after when computing the two weeks attendance it will be empty
as well and it will disappear.

Last bug was if after creating this you tried to switch the calendar
type it will call the same validation error mentioned earlier. As when
calling _get_default_attendance_ids it will try to create attendances
from the company's default working schedule which will have a conflict
since the company's schedule is 2-weeks schedule and we are switching
our schedule to 1-week schedule so we are gonna have attendances for 2-weeks
in 1-week schedule so it will fail the same condition

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b51dc298fd63d9586d0b8d7cff59764b0dee5cae/addons/resource/models/resource_calendar.py#L615-L616

## Fix:
To fix those issues we needed to set the sequence values when copying
the data of the company's schedule when computing the default values. 

Also we need to skip the inverse method when we are still upon creating the records
and to do so we are passing a context in the create method to skip
the inverse.

Last we need to check for the difference between the schedule type and the
company's schedule when fetching the default attendances.

opw-6374237

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#281716
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#279182

- Compute the standard durations for all French leaves in a single
  `_get_durations()` call instead of recomputing them for each leave.

- Reuse the precomputed duration mapping while calculating the French
  legal duration for each leave.

- Keep the existing French-specific duration calculation unchanged,
  including public holidays, company calendar, date extension, and
  half-day handling.

This avoids repeated ORM computations when processing multiple French
leaves in a batch and significantly improves the performance of leave
duration computation.

Performance testing was performed using the `hr.leave.employee.report`
introduced in 19.1, which calls `_get_durations()` on a large batch of
virtual leaves.

Performance testing on a database containing 677 leaves, including
298 French leaves:

| Metric                              | Before          | After       |
|------------------------------------|-----------------|-------------|
| Standard duration computations    | 298             | 1           |
| Total `_get_durations()`          | >169s (timeout) | ~24s        |

not specific to the employee report and benefits
any caller that invokes _get_durations() on a larger batch.

**opw-6421323**
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#281914
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#281165

Before this commit, some layouts had the customer address on the right
(light, boxed, bold, striped) and some had it on the left (bubble, wave,
folder). For the latter, when an information_block with the address existed,
it would be inserted before the address pushing it further right. This was
inconsistent since the address position should not depend on whether an
information_block is present or not.

The customer address must stay in a fixed place to match the transparent
window of the envelope when sending a physical letter by snailmail.

This commit fixes this issue by ensuring that in all cases the customer
address position stays fixed regardless of the presence or absence of
the information_block and regardless of the layout used for the letter.

It also fixes the addresses displayed on the sale order report:
1) If invoicing address = partner address != shipping address
or invoicing address != partner address = shipping address
then the three addresses would be printed, even though 2 addresses
are identical.
2) The shipping address and the invoicing address are now printed
horizontally rather than vertically to get rid of the resulting large
blank block under the partner address in that case.

backport of: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/276622

task-6340467

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#281937
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#273640

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
1. Install `hr` module
2. Create two employees (e.g., emp1 and emp2) and assign
   emp1 as the manager of emp2
   → emp2 is now a direct subordinate of emp1
3. In the employee list view, apply the custom filter
   "Direct subordinates is set" (child_ids != False)
   → emp1 appears in the results as expected
4. Archive emp2
5. Apply the same filter again
   → emp1 still appears in the results even though it has
   no active subordinates

Issue:
------
When an employee (e.g., `emp2`) is archived, their manager (`emp1`) should no longer appear in the "Direct subordinates is set" (child_ids != False) filter — since `emp1` no longer has any active subordinates.

However, `emp1` still appears in the search results after `emp2` is archived, because the underlying EXISTS subquery checks all subordinates regardless of their active state.

Cause:
--------
Before this commit 5ef007a, `osv.expression`, filtering on a One2many field would automatically
search against [active co-records ](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5f65e92d7fa341193df53f5aba1620b596f9a1ec/odoo/osv/expression.py#L1260-L1265)only by default.

After that commit, the `condition_to_sql` method in `_RelationalMulti` constructs the comodel with [active_test=False](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/463ca4cf867812890c17d1e1abf7640b04f70ad0/odoo/orm/fields_relational.py#L672-L686) when resolving relational field conditions. This causes the EXISTS subquery generated for `child_ids != False` to compare against all subordinates. (including archived ones rather than active ones only).

Solution:
---------
Added a callable `domain` attribute on the `child_ids` field definition so that only active subordinates are considered by default. This ensures [get_comodel_domain()](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/2d8b24a791b6fe6bb214c32d4fb58b3d46eca70b/odoo/orm/fields_relational.py#L75-L85) returns a server-side domain that filters out archived subordinates, making the `child_ids != False` filter behave as expected.




opw-6193104



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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#281222
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#266658

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

Installing Odoo via the .deb package continuously causes issues with the asset bundles. This is because of the following daisy chain of behaviors:

- `dpkg-buildpackage` parses `SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH` from debian/changelog and then clamps the Modified date of all files to at max that epoch ([src](https://launchpad.net/debian/+source/dpkg/1.18.8)). The relevate date is the one written after the email in the topmost changelog entry
- This is preserved when unpacking the .deb package, the OS does not change it
- The Asset loading logic in ir.qweb and ir.asset relies on the Modified date (via [`os.path.getmtime`](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/17.0/odoo/addons/base/models/ir_asset.py#L49)) to determine the hash that serves a Version for the asset bundles ([src](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/17.0/odoo/addons/base/models/assetsbundle.py#L775), [src](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/17.0/odoo/addons/base/models/assetsbundle.py#L148))
- The controller and ir.qweb compiler rely on this Version hash to correctly invalidate outdated asset bundles and force re-generation of the bundle content as neccessary

Current behavior before PR:

debian/changelog has not been changed or maintained since 2020 and its timestamp remains `Tue, 15 Dec 2020 10:28:49 +0100` This results in the Modified Date being clamped to 2020, which means the files no matter how much is changed always look like last modified on this date. Therefore the Version hash for the asset bundles never changes, and the asset reload logic does not trigger correctly.
This is especially dangerous for setups which use several code sources with different file delivery methods, for example installing Community via .deb but Enterprise via git. This results in only some asset bundles not being updated (those not touched by Enterprise modules) while others are, which then generates an OWL error as it detects the content being different between the bundles ([src](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/17.0/addons/web/static/lib/owl/owl.js#L3333))
For versions 18+, a very common result of this behavior is the portal chatter failing to work. This is because the same files like for example mail/static/src/core/common/thread.xml being loaded into both [`portal.assets_chatter`](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/18.0/addons/portal/__manifest__.py#L69), which is not touched by an Enterprise module, but also into [`web.assets_frontend`
](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/18.0/addons/im_livechat/__manifest__.py#L90) via im_livechat, which is a bundle touched by many modules, including Enterprise modules. Thus, is a file in the mail addon is changed, the changes are correctly applied to `web.assets_frontend`, but not `portal.assets_chatter`, causing an OWL error. This is extremely frustrating to fix, since it not only requires a manual Asset Rebuild, but also for every user to empty their Browser Cache, since the assets bundles are so large as to be guaranteed to be cached, and if the old version of the bundle is loaded from cache, the OWL error persists. A similar error can also happen with website, since the assets for the WYSIWIG editor are loaded as a module-specific bundle, `website.assets_wysiwyg`, which also fails to update, while of course the same assets being loaded to the general website asset bundle will be updated.

Desired behavior after PR is merged:

The builder for the nightly .deb package of Odoo writes a complete debian/changelog entry instead of merely replacing the first line. This entry includes the current date, thus ensuring the Modified date for the files is not clamped to years in the past. Down the line, this fixes the assets loading issue.


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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#269458

### Issue before this commit:
Before commit f2965048f60fe6c815b3e50fa714c97a93dfb5d3, company_type allowed manually selecting whether a contact was an individual or a company. After the commit, is_company became a stored computed field derived from the VAT number, with no manual override available in the standard UI, and no exception was added for Spanish DNI/NIE formats.

### Steps to reproduce the issue:
1. Download Accounting and l10n_es
2. Set as VAT of ES company 47857909S (or similar but must be a DNI or NIE format)
3. Create an invoice for a Spanish customer
4. Send the invoice with Facturae
5. Check the XML created and see that the tag <PersonTypeCode> of <SellerParty> has a J (legal entity) rather than an F (individual)

### Cause of the issue:
The Spanish localization's _compute_is_company override only adds the check for CIF-formatted VAT numbers (for [legal entities](https://sede.agenciatributaria.gob.es/Sede/ayuda/manuales-videos-folletos/manuales-practicos/guia-practica-cumplimentacion-modelo-censal-036/anexos/anexo-01-solicitud-nif-documentacion-aportar/informacion-sobre-numero-identificacion-fiscal/composicion-nif/personas-juridicas-entidades.html)) but it has no corresponding negative check for DNI or NIE formats (for [standalone individuals](https://sede.agenciatributaria.gob.es/Sede/ayuda/manuales-videos-folletos/manuales-practicos/guia-practica-cumplimentacion-modelo-censal-036/anexos/anexo-01-solicitud-nif-documentacion-aportar/informacion-sobre-numero-identificacion-fiscal/composicion-nif/personas-fisicas.html)). Here the [rules](https://factuo.es/herramientas/verificador-nif) for regex.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f014e0b7bc3ce56a9931e81339a4f8327a400422/addons/l10n_es/models/res_partner.py#L39-L51 As a result, any standalone partner with a valid non-void VAT inherits is_company = True from the base computation.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f014e0b7bc3ce56a9931e81339a4f8327a400422/odoo/addons/base/models/res_partner.py#L824-L833

### Reason to introduce the fix:
The Facturae 3.2.2 export directly derives PersonTypeCode (F/J) and the LegalEntity/Individual XML structure from partner.is_company. Since a self-employed individual (autónomo) is required to use their personal DNI/NIE as NIF and is their own commercial partner, the current logic misclassifies them as a legal entity (J), producing a Facturae invoice with an incorrect PersonTypeCode and structure. Explicitly setting is_company = False for DNI/NIE-formatted Spanish VAT numbers restores the ability to correctly represent individual entrepreneurs in Facturae exports.

opw-6396314

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277228

Steps to reproduce the bug:
- Install a localization that overrides invoice_policy defaults for storable products without an explicit company_id (e.g. l10n_ke_edi_oscu_stock, which forces 'delivery' in that case)
- Run TestSaleMRPAngloSaxonValuation.test_sale_mrp_kit_bom_cogs (sale_mrp) or TestAngloSaxonValuation.test_anglo_saxon_cogs_partial_down_payment_credit_note (sale_stock)

Problem:
These tests create their products without setting invoice_policy explicitly, relying on the field's implicit default. l10n_ke_edi_oscu_stock's _compute_invoice_policy (https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/4e459417dac809caafea34aa2e487fc3c1f0ce1a/l10n_ke_edi_oscu_stock/models/product.py#L16-L21) forces invoice_policy to 'delivery' for any storable product whose company_id is not set, which is the case for products created in these test fixtures.

Once invoice_policy becomes 'delivery', invoiced quantities are driven by qty_delivered instead of the ordered quantity, which the affected tests never account for (some deliver an arbitrary quantity instead of the exact BoM demand, others never validate a delivery at all), causing wrong COGS amounts or wrongly invoiced quantities as soon as such a localization is installed alongside these modules.

Solution:
Pin invoice_policy to 'order' explicitly wherever these test fixtures create their products, so the test outcome no longer depends on which other modules happen to be installed.

runbot-243633

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#279277
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#278346

Before this commit, marking several manufacturing orders as done at once crashed or could post labour costs on the wrong account, because the labour posting loop read the product and the company from the whole recordset instead of the manufacturing order being processed.

Steps to reproduce:
- activate a second company, e.g. My Company (Chicago)
- create a manufacturing order in each company and confirm them
- in the Manufacturing Orders list view, select both orders and mark them as done

A "ValueError: Expected singleton: res.company(...)" traceback is raised and none of the orders can be closed, even though each one can be marked as done individually. With same-company orders of different products, the production location resolved from the union of products, so the labour entry could be posted against another product's WIP account.

Use the manufacturing order of the current loop iteration to resolve the production location, as the rest of the loop already does.

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276586

Steps:
- Install `account_peppol` module.
- Set `Peppol` compatible country and related details
- Go to my/account page.

Issue:
- Peppol related details always displayed on `my/account` page even though user select different invoice sending method like: `By Email`.

Casue:
- selector to manage visibility of Peppol related details in `my/account` is wrong and because of that those fields always display. Probably because https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/195764 and backport of this https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/198327 merged at same time.

Fix:
- Update selector to fix this

### [FIX] account_peppol: fix error when setting wrong endpoint

Steps:
- Install `account_peppol` module.
- Set `Peppol` compatible country and related details.
- Go to my/account page.
- Set some wrong Peppol value for `Peppol e-Address (EAS)` or `Peppol Endpoint` or `Electronic format`.

Issue:
- Not able to save those details without any error message on address page and getting error on console `Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'classList')`.

Casue:
- In this PR https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/190312 when adapting portal page we set not existing fields in `invalid_fields` details and because of that it can't find related fields on address page and don't allow to save details without raising proper error message.

Fix:
- Updated `invalid_fields` values to properly target them

### [FIX] account_peppol: fix display issue for peppol related fields in address

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#281718

Steps to reproduce the bug:
- Enable 2-step delivery (pick + ship) on a warehouse.
- Set both rules on the delivery route to "Pull" (instead of the default Pull + Push):
    - Pick rule (Stock -> Output): action = Pull, procure_method = make_to_stock
    - Ship rule (Output -> Customers): action = Pull, procure_method = make_to_order
- Create a sale order for qty 1 and confirm it.
- Validate the Pick transfer.
- Return the Pick transfer.
- Cancel the sale order.
- Set it back to quotation and confirm it again.

Problem:
The newly created delivery (ship) move ends up asking for a wrong, inflated quantity instead of the ordered one (e.g. 3 times the ordered qty for the scenario above; the multiplier depends on the number of prior confirm/cancel/return cycles).

`_action_cancel` (addons/sale_stock/models/sale_order.py) only cancels pickings that are not `done`, so after the pick is validated and returned, cancelling the SO only cancels the still-pending ship move. The pick move and its return stay `done` and linked to the sale order line.

`SaleOrderLine._get_outgoing_incoming_moves` determines which rule "started" the pull/push chain by picking the rule of the first surviving (non-cancelled) move, grouped by warehouse: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/d7bad3dc6c068ffe8643ecb01da1865d743bfb8f/addons/sale_stock/models/sale_order_line.py#L338-L347

Once the ship move is cancelled, it is excluded from that computation, so the Pick rule is wrongly identified as the "triggering" rule instead of the Ship rule. The done pick move and its return share that rule, so they both end up wrongly classified as incoming (returned) quantities instead of being excluded from the computation like before the cancellation, corrupting `_get_qty_procurement`. On reconfirm, `_action_launch_stock_rule` computes
`product_qty = product_uom_qty - qty`, inflating the quantity requested on the new ship move.

Solution:
Identify the triggering rule from the sale order line's full move history, including cancelled moves, so cancelling a move later doesn't change which rule is considered to have started the chain.

opw-6364113

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280280

Steps to reproduce the bug:
- Create three storable products C1 ($10), C2 ($20), C3 ($5)
- Create a product P1 with a BoM: 1x C1 + 1x C2
- Create a Manufacturing Order for P1 and validate it
- Unlock the MO (Settings > Unlock)
- Add C3 as an extra component on the unlocked MO
- Open the MO overview

Problem:
The extra move had value=0 after creation, causing the unit_cost in the
MO overview to appear as 0. When a move is added to a done picking or MO
it is created with state='done' and quantity set immediately. This triggers
_set_quantity_done, which creates the move line and calls
_set_value(correction_quantity=delta). Inside _set_value, for outgoing
moves with a correction_quantity, the code computes:
  previous_qty = move.quantity - correction_quantity
Since the move had no prior quantity, previous_qty=0. The original code then
computed ratio=0 and applied move.value += 0, leaving value=0 instead of
computing it from scratch.

Solution:
When previous_qty=0, skip the ratio branch and fall through to the existing
from-scratch computation (standard_price * _get_valued_qty() for AVCO/standard
costing, _run_fifo() for FIFO).

opw-6377393

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#279962
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276303

- Compute the standard durations for all French leaves in a single
  `_get_durations()` call instead of recomputing them for each leave.

- Reuse the precomputed duration mapping while calculating the French
  legal duration for each leave.

- Keep the existing French-specific duration calculation unchanged,
  including public holidays, company calendar, date extension, and
  half-day handling.

This avoids repeated ORM computations when processing multiple French
leaves in a batch and significantly improves the performance of leave
duration computation.

Performance testing was performed using the `hr.leave.employee.report`
introduced in 19.1, which calls `_get_durations()` on a large batch of
virtual leaves.

Performance testing on a database containing 677 leaves, including
298 French leaves:

| Metric                              | Before          | After       |
|------------------------------------|-----------------|-------------|
| Standard duration computations    | 298             | 1           |
| Total `_get_durations()`          | >169s (timeout) | ~24s        |

not specific to the employee report and benefits
any caller that invokes _get_durations() on a larger batch.

**opw-6421323**
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#281914
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#281165

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

Installing Odoo via the .deb package continuously causes issues with the asset bundles. This is because of the following daisy chain of behaviors:

- `dpkg-buildpackage` parses `SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH` from debian/changelog and then clamps the Modified date of all files to at max that epoch ([src](https://launchpad.net/debian/+source/dpkg/1.18.8)). The relevate date is the one written after the email in the topmost changelog entry
- This is preserved when unpacking the .deb package, the OS does not change it
- The Asset loading logic in ir.qweb and ir.asset relies on the Modified date (via [`os.path.getmtime`](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/17.0/odoo/addons/base/models/ir_asset.py#L49)) to determine the hash that serves a Version for the asset bundles ([src](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/17.0/odoo/addons/base/models/assetsbundle.py#L775), [src](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/17.0/odoo/addons/base/models/assetsbundle.py#L148))
- The controller and ir.qweb compiler rely on this Version hash to correctly invalidate outdated asset bundles and force re-generation of the bundle content as neccessary

Current behavior before PR:

debian/changelog has not been changed or maintained since 2020 and its timestamp remains `Tue, 15 Dec 2020 10:28:49 +0100` This results in the Modified Date being clamped to 2020, which means the files no matter how much is changed always look like last modified on this date. Therefore the Version hash for the asset bundles never changes, and the asset reload logic does not trigger correctly.
This is especially dangerous for setups which use several code sources with different file delivery methods, for example installing Community via .deb but Enterprise via git. This results in only some asset bundles not being updated (those not touched by Enterprise modules) while others are, which then generates an OWL error as it detects the content being different between the bundles ([src](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/17.0/addons/web/static/lib/owl/owl.js#L3333))
For versions 18+, a very common result of this behavior is the portal chatter failing to work. This is because the same files like for example mail/static/src/core/common/thread.xml being loaded into both [`portal.assets_chatter`](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/18.0/addons/portal/__manifest__.py#L69), which is not touched by an Enterprise module, but also into [`web.assets_frontend`
](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/18.0/addons/im_livechat/__manifest__.py#L90) via im_livechat, which is a bundle touched by many modules, including Enterprise modules. Thus, is a file in the mail addon is changed, the changes are correctly applied to `web.assets_frontend`, but not `portal.assets_chatter`, causing an OWL error. This is extremely frustrating to fix, since it not only requires a manual Asset Rebuild, but also for every user to empty their Browser Cache, since the assets bundles are so large as to be guaranteed to be cached, and if the old version of the bundle is loaded from cache, the OWL error persists. A similar error can also happen with website, since the assets for the WYSIWIG editor are loaded as a module-specific bundle, `website.assets_wysiwyg`, which also fails to update, while of course the same assets being loaded to the general website asset bundle will be updated.

Desired behavior after PR is merged:

The builder for the nightly .deb package of Odoo writes a complete debian/changelog entry instead of merely replacing the first line. This entry includes the current date, thus ensuring the Modified date for the files is not clamped to years in the past. Down the line, this fixes the assets loading issue.


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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#269458

Steps to produce:
---
- Install `website_sale` and `stock` modules
- Create a product, publish it, and add it to the cart from website.
- Go to `Website > eCommerce > Orders > Orders`.
- Open the order, click on `Add shipping` > add `Standard Delivery`.
- Confirm the order, validate the delivery via the Delivery smart button.
- From the list view, click the `To fulfill` button.

Issue:
---
- The order that was just delivered still appears in the `To fulfill` filter results, even though all actual products have been fully delivered.

Root cause:
---
- The `_search_is_unfulfilled`[1] method checks whether any order line has `qty_delivered < product_uom_qty`. A delivery/shipping line (with `is_delivery = True`) is a service—it is never physically delivered, so its `qty_delivered` remains 0 while its `product_uom_qty` is typically 1. This means `0 < 1` is always true for delivery lines, causing every order with a shipping cost line to permanently appear as unfulfilled, regardless of whether all actual products have been fully delivered.

Solution:
---
- Added domain to exclude all service-type products from the unfulfilled orders check.
- Now, an order line is considered unfulfilled only when:
  - `qty_delivered < product_uom_qty` (under-delivered)
  - `product.type != 'service'` (not a service product — excludes services, delivery lines, etc.)

[1]https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/e5d6650c542e44441c7087c729b3b74af3c75fe0/addons/website_sale/models/sale_order.py#L171-L183

opw-6420723
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

### Issue before this commit:
Before commit f2965048f60fe6c815b3e50fa714c97a93dfb5d3, company_type allowed manually selecting whether a contact was an individual or a company. After the commit, is_company became a stored computed field derived from the VAT number, with no manual override available in the standard UI, and no exception was added for Spanish DNI/NIE formats.

### Steps to reproduce the issue:
1. Download Accounting and l10n_es
2. Set as VAT of ES company 47857909S (or similar but must be a DNI or NIE format)
3. Create an invoice for a Spanish customer
4. Send the invoice with Facturae
5. Check the XML created and see that the tag <PersonTypeCode> of <SellerParty> has a J (legal entity) rather than an F (individual)

### Cause of the issue:
The Spanish localization's _compute_is_company override only adds the check for CIF-formatted VAT numbers (for [legal entities](https://sede.agenciatributaria.gob.es/Sede/ayuda/manuales-videos-folletos/manuales-practicos/guia-practica-cumplimentacion-modelo-censal-036/anexos/anexo-01-solicitud-nif-documentacion-aportar/informacion-sobre-numero-identificacion-fiscal/composicion-nif/personas-juridicas-entidades.html)) but it has no corresponding negative check for DNI or NIE formats (for [standalone individuals](https://sede.agenciatributaria.gob.es/Sede/ayuda/manuales-videos-folletos/manuales-practicos/guia-practica-cumplimentacion-modelo-censal-036/anexos/anexo-01-solicitud-nif-documentacion-aportar/informacion-sobre-numero-identificacion-fiscal/composicion-nif/personas-fisicas.html)). Here the [rules](https://factuo.es/herramientas/verificador-nif) for regex.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f014e0b7bc3ce56a9931e81339a4f8327a400422/addons/l10n_es/models/res_partner.py#L39-L51 As a result, any standalone partner with a valid non-void VAT inherits is_company = True from the base computation.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f014e0b7bc3ce56a9931e81339a4f8327a400422/odoo/addons/base/models/res_partner.py#L824-L833

### Reason to introduce the fix:
The Facturae 3.2.2 export directly derives PersonTypeCode (F/J) and the LegalEntity/Individual XML structure from partner.is_company. Since a self-employed individual (autónomo) is required to use their personal DNI/NIE as NIF and is their own commercial partner, the current logic misclassifies them as a legal entity (J), producing a Facturae invoice with an incorrect PersonTypeCode and structure. Explicitly setting is_company = False for DNI/NIE-formatted Spanish VAT numbers restores the ability to correctly represent individual entrepreneurs in Facturae exports.

opw-6396314

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277228

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

Installing Odoo via the .deb package continuously causes issues with the asset bundles. This is because of the following daisy chain of behaviors:

- `dpkg-buildpackage` parses `SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH` from debian/changelog and then clamps the Modified date of all files to at max that epoch ([src](https://launchpad.net/debian/+source/dpkg/1.18.8)). The relevate date is the one written after the email in the topmost changelog entry
- This is preserved when unpacking the .deb package, the OS does not change it
- The Asset loading logic in ir.qweb and ir.asset relies on the Modified date (via [`os.path.getmtime`](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/17.0/odoo/addons/base/models/ir_asset.py#L49)) to determine the hash that serves a Version for the asset bundles ([src](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/17.0/odoo/addons/base/models/assetsbundle.py#L775), [src](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/17.0/odoo/addons/base/models/assetsbundle.py#L148))
- The controller and ir.qweb compiler rely on this Version hash to correctly invalidate outdated asset bundles and force re-generation of the bundle content as neccessary

Current behavior before PR:

debian/changelog has not been changed or maintained since 2020 and its timestamp remains `Tue, 15 Dec 2020 10:28:49 +0100` This results in the Modified Date being clamped to 2020, which means the files no matter how much is changed always look like last modified on this date. Therefore the Version hash for the asset bundles never changes, and the asset reload logic does not trigger correctly.
This is especially dangerous for setups which use several code sources with different file delivery methods, for example installing Community via .deb but Enterprise via git. This results in only some asset bundles not being updated (those not touched by Enterprise modules) while others are, which then generates an OWL error as it detects the content being different between the bundles ([src](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/17.0/addons/web/static/lib/owl/owl.js#L3333))
For versions 18+, a very common result of this behavior is the portal chatter failing to work. This is because the same files like for example mail/static/src/core/common/thread.xml being loaded into both [`portal.assets_chatter`](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/18.0/addons/portal/__manifest__.py#L69), which is not touched by an Enterprise module, but also into [`web.assets_frontend`
](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/18.0/addons/im_livechat/__manifest__.py#L90) via im_livechat, which is a bundle touched by many modules, including Enterprise modules. Thus, is a file in the mail addon is changed, the changes are correctly applied to `web.assets_frontend`, but not `portal.assets_chatter`, causing an OWL error. This is extremely frustrating to fix, since it not only requires a manual Asset Rebuild, but also for every user to empty their Browser Cache, since the assets bundles are so large as to be guaranteed to be cached, and if the old version of the bundle is loaded from cache, the OWL error persists. A similar error can also happen with website, since the assets for the WYSIWIG editor are loaded as a module-specific bundle, `website.assets_wysiwyg`, which also fails to update, while of course the same assets being loaded to the general website asset bundle will be updated.

Desired behavior after PR is merged:

The builder for the nightly .deb package of Odoo writes a complete debian/changelog entry instead of merely replacing the first line. This entry includes the current date, thus ensuring the Modified date for the files is not clamped to years in the past. Down the line, this fixes the assets loading issue.


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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#269458

Before this commit, marking several manufacturing orders as done at once crashed or could post labour costs on the wrong account, because the labour posting loop read the product and the company from the whole recordset instead of the manufacturing order being processed.

Steps to reproduce:
- activate a second company, e.g. My Company (Chicago)
- create a manufacturing order in each company and confirm them
- in the Manufacturing Orders list view, select both orders and mark them as done

A "ValueError: Expected singleton: res.company(...)" traceback is raised and none of the orders can be closed, even though each one can be marked as done individually. With same-company orders of different products, the production location resolved from the union of products, so the labour entry could be posted against another product's WIP account.

Use the manufacturing order of the current loop iteration to resolve the production location, as the rest of the loop already does.

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276586

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

A user without accounting rights cannot open an invoice form when l10n_fr_pdp is installed.

The module extends the method _compute_show_reset_to_draft_button which reads l10n_fr_pdp_sent_in_flow_ids.
That field is only readable by the accounting groups while show_reset_to_draft_button is declared in the standard invoice form
without any groups restriction

< field name="show_reset_to_draft_button" invisible="1"/ > in account.view_move_form

Every user able to open an invoice therefore reads it.

Steps to reproduce:
- install `l10n_fr_pdp`
- create a salesman user with sales rights but no accounting right (*Own Documents Only* is enough)
- create a FR company and a FR customer
- give the salesman access to the FR company
- activate Peppol in the general settings
- log in as the salesman
- create a sale order in the FR company for the FR customer
- confirm it
- click **Create Invoice**
- click **Create Draft**

Current behavior before PR:

An Access Error dialog is raised

Failed to read field account.move.l10n_fr_pdp_sent_in_flow_ids
You are not allowed to access 'French PDP Flow' (l10n.fr.pdp.reports.flow) records.

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


In odoo.sh, the standard test sale_management / TestSaleFlowTourPostInstall.test_basic_sale_flow_with_minimal_access_rights
fails for the same reason as soon as l10n_fr_pdp is installed alongside sale_management.

Desired behavior after PR is merged:

On a database with l10n_fr_pdp installed, a non-accountant user having the possibility to create invoice 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#280754

Steps:
- Install `account_peppol` module.
- Set `Peppol` compatible country and related details
- Go to my/account page.

Issue:
- Peppol related details always displayed on `my/account` page even though user select different invoice sending method like: `By Email`.

Casue:
- selector to manage visibility of Peppol related details in `my/account` is wrong and because of that those fields always display. Probably because https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/195764 and backport of this https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/198327 merged at same time.

Fix:
- Update selector to fix this

### [FIX] account_peppol: fix error when setting wrong endpoint

Steps:
- Install `account_peppol` module.
- Set `Peppol` compatible country and related details.
- Go to my/account page.
- Set some wrong Peppol value for `Peppol e-Address (EAS)` or `Peppol Endpoint` or `Electronic format`.

Issue:
- Not able to save those details without any error message on address page and getting error on console `Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'classList')`.

Casue:
- In this PR https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/190312 when adapting portal page we set not existing fields in `invalid_fields` details and because of that it can't find related fields on address page and don't allow to save details without raising proper error message.

Fix:
- Updated `invalid_fields` values to properly target them

### [FIX] account_peppol: fix display issue for peppol related fields in address

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#281718

Behavior before:
When uploading an animated GIF to fields utilizing image responsive sizing or cropping (such as employee avatars or product images), no downscaling or cropping occurs for sub-variants like 'image_128' or 'image_1024'. The responsive fields replicate the exact file size and data footprint of the original large image, leading to heavy storage overhead and unnecessary frontend asset loading.

Behavior after:
Animated GIF images scale down and crop correctly to match requested responsive dimensions and aspect ratios. Sub-variants take up significantly less space in the filestore, matching proportional dimensions without dropping or stripping the underlying animation loop. Large images that are smaller than requested boxes are safely left un-upscaled to maximize database deduplication.

Root Cause:
Historically, a legacy safeguard bypassed GIF resizing and cropping because older versions of the Pillow library did not gracefully handle multi-frame sequential image buffers. As a result, standard 'image.crop()', 'image.thumbnail()', or 'image.resize()' implementations would flatten multi-frame animated sequences down into a single, static first frame or throw dimension/mode mismatches during save operations.

Fix:
Intercept the image processing pipeline when encountering an asset identified as a GIF where 'is_animated' evaluates to True. Implemented a unified, in-place multi-frame helper routine (`_apply_gif_operation`) using PIL's 'ImageSequence.Iterator' to cleanly step through, normalize to a uniform color mode (RGBA), duplicate, and modify each animation frame individually. 

This single helper handles sequential workflows for both 'crop' and 'thumbnail' operations while preserving individual frame duration arrays and native loop metadata. Both 'resize' and 'crop_resize' leverage this logic to achieve precise dimensions cleanly.

Crucially, upscaling (expanding) is intentionally unsupported for animated GIFs. Forcing a low-resolution, 256-color indexed animation to stretch beyond its native dimensions forces heavy color dithering across every single frame. This breaks the sequential LZW pattern compression, causing the resulting file sizes to skyrocket catastrophically. The logic utilizes thumbnail boundaries to completely block this expansion, protecting the filestore from accidental bloat.

Benchmark:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| GIF size    | Variant          | Size Before (KB)   | Size After (KB)   |
|---------------|--------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------|
| (2.5MB)    | image_1024  | 2475.87                 | 2475.87             |
|                   | image_128    | 2475.87                 |  257.93              |
|---------------|--------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------| 
| (3.8MB)     | image_1024 | 3724.93                 | 3724.93             |
|                    | image_128   | 3724.93                 |  463.62              |
|----------------|-------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------|
| (442KB)     | image_1024 |  432.49                  |  432.49              |
|                    | image_128   |  432.49                  |   36.14               |
|----------------|-------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------|
| (3.6MB)     | image_1024 | 3491.98                 | 3491.98             |
|                    | image_128   | 3491.98                 | 1728.25             |
|----------------|-------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------|

opw-6232841

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

Current behavior before PR:

Desired behavior after PR is merged:




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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#273098

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

Installing Odoo via the .deb package continuously causes issues with the asset bundles. This is because of the following daisy chain of behaviors:

- `dpkg-buildpackage` parses `SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH` from debian/changelog and then clamps the Modified date of all files to at max that epoch ([src](https://launchpad.net/debian/+source/dpkg/1.18.8)). The relevate date is the one written after the email in the topmost changelog entry
- This is preserved when unpacking the .deb package, the OS does not change it
- The Asset loading logic in ir.qweb and ir.asset relies on the Modified date (via [`os.path.getmtime`](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/17.0/odoo/addons/base/models/ir_asset.py#L49)) to determine the hash that serves a Version for the asset bundles ([src](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/17.0/odoo/addons/base/models/assetsbundle.py#L775), [src](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/17.0/odoo/addons/base/models/assetsbundle.py#L148))
- The controller and ir.qweb compiler rely on this Version hash to correctly invalidate outdated asset bundles and force re-generation of the bundle content as neccessary

Current behavior before PR:

debian/changelog has not been changed or maintained since 2020 and its timestamp remains `Tue, 15 Dec 2020 10:28:49 +0100` This results in the Modified Date being clamped to 2020, which means the files no matter how much is changed always look like last modified on this date. Therefore the Version hash for the asset bundles never changes, and the asset reload logic does not trigger correctly.
This is especially dangerous for setups which use several code sources with different file delivery methods, for example installing Community via .deb but Enterprise via git. This results in only some asset bundles not being updated (those not touched by Enterprise modules) while others are, which then generates an OWL error as it detects the content being different between the bundles ([src](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/17.0/addons/web/static/lib/owl/owl.js#L3333))
For versions 18+, a very common result of this behavior is the portal chatter failing to work. This is because the same files like for example mail/static/src/core/common/thread.xml being loaded into both [`portal.assets_chatter`](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/18.0/addons/portal/__manifest__.py#L69), which is not touched by an Enterprise module, but also into [`web.assets_frontend`
](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/18.0/addons/im_livechat/__manifest__.py#L90) via im_livechat, which is a bundle touched by many modules, including Enterprise modules. Thus, is a file in the mail addon is changed, the changes are correctly applied to `web.assets_frontend`, but not `portal.assets_chatter`, causing an OWL error. This is extremely frustrating to fix, since it not only requires a manual Asset Rebuild, but also for every user to empty their Browser Cache, since the assets bundles are so large as to be guaranteed to be cached, and if the old version of the bundle is loaded from cache, the OWL error persists. A similar error can also happen with website, since the assets for the WYSIWIG editor are loaded as a module-specific bundle, `website.assets_wysiwyg`, which also fails to update, while of course the same assets being loaded to the general website asset bundle will be updated.

Desired behavior after PR is merged:

The builder for the nightly .deb package of Odoo writes a complete debian/changelog entry instead of merely replacing the first line. This entry includes the current date, thus ensuring the Modified date for the files is not clamped to years in the past. Down the line, this fixes the assets loading issue.


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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#269458

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

Installing Odoo via the .deb package continuously causes issues with the asset bundles. This is because of the following daisy chain of behaviors:

- `dpkg-buildpackage` parses `SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH` from debian/changelog and then clamps the Modified date of all files to at max that epoch ([src](https://launchpad.net/debian/+source/dpkg/1.18.8)). The relevate date is the one written after the email in the topmost changelog entry
- This is preserved when unpacking the .deb package, the OS does not change it
- The Asset loading logic in ir.qweb and ir.asset relies on the Modified date (via [`os.path.getmtime`](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/17.0/odoo/addons/base/models/ir_asset.py#L49)) to determine the hash that serves a Version for the asset bundles ([src](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/17.0/odoo/addons/base/models/assetsbundle.py#L775), [src](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/17.0/odoo/addons/base/models/assetsbundle.py#L148))
- The controller and ir.qweb compiler rely on this Version hash to correctly invalidate outdated asset bundles and force re-generation of the bundle content as neccessary

Current behavior before PR:

debian/changelog has not been changed or maintained since 2020 and its timestamp remains `Tue, 15 Dec 2020 10:28:49 +0100` This results in the Modified Date being clamped to 2020, which means the files no matter how much is changed always look like last modified on this date. Therefore the Version hash for the asset bundles never changes, and the asset reload logic does not trigger correctly.
This is especially dangerous for setups which use several code sources with different file delivery methods, for example installing Community via .deb but Enterprise via git. This results in only some asset bundles not being updated (those not touched by Enterprise modules) while others are, which then generates an OWL error as it detects the content being different between the bundles ([src](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/17.0/addons/web/static/lib/owl/owl.js#L3333))
For versions 18+, a very common result of this behavior is the portal chatter failing to work. This is because the same files like for example mail/static/src/core/common/thread.xml being loaded into both [`portal.assets_chatter`](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/18.0/addons/portal/__manifest__.py#L69), which is not touched by an Enterprise module, but also into [`web.assets_frontend`
](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/18.0/addons/im_livechat/__manifest__.py#L90) via im_livechat, which is a bundle touched by many modules, including Enterprise modules. Thus, is a file in the mail addon is changed, the changes are correctly applied to `web.assets_frontend`, but not `portal.assets_chatter`, causing an OWL error. This is extremely frustrating to fix, since it not only requires a manual Asset Rebuild, but also for every user to empty their Browser Cache, since the assets bundles are so large as to be guaranteed to be cached, and if the old version of the bundle is loaded from cache, the OWL error persists. A similar error can also happen with website, since the assets for the WYSIWIG editor are loaded as a module-specific bundle, `website.assets_wysiwyg`, which also fails to update, while of course the same assets being loaded to the general website asset bundle will be updated.

Desired behavior after PR is merged:

The builder for the nightly .deb package of Odoo writes a complete debian/changelog entry instead of merely replacing the first line. This entry includes the current date, thus ensuring the Modified date for the files is not clamped to years in the past. Down the line, this fixes the assets loading issue.


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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#269458

### Issue:
The mega menu position is inconsistent between the two "Sub Menus"
options.

With "On Click", the mega menu opens below the navbar, which is its
default position. With "On Hover", it opens directly below the mega menu
toggle, making it visually misaligned with the "On Click" behavior.

### Reason:
The different positioning for "On Hover" was intentional. If the mega
menu were placed in its default position, the gap between the toggle and
the mega menu would cause the cursor to briefly leave both elements
while moving between them, unintentionally closing the mega menu. To
prevent this, the mega menu was positioned directly below the toggle,
removing that gap.

### Fix:
Restore the mega menu to its default position for "On Hover" to match
the "On Click" behavior.

To prevent the original issue of the mega menu closing while the cursor
travels from the toggle to the mega menu, introduce an invisible hover
bridge. The bridge is implemented as a pseudo-element of the mega menu
toggle, ensuring the cursor never leaves the hover area while crossing
the gap.

For header templates, such as "Menu - Sales 1" and "Menu - Sales 4", the
hover bridge overlaps interactive content in the navbar. To avoid this,
position the mega menu below the menus container instead of below the
navbar for these specific headers in both "Sub Menus" options.

This results in a consistent mega menu position while preventing
unintentional menu closure during cursor movement.

task-[6116253](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project/974/tasks/6116253)

Co-authored-by: Arib Ansari <aans@odoo.com>



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

### Issue before this commit:
When generating an electronic invoice (e.g., ZUGFeRD/Factur-X) with a 0% tax from a non-EEA supplier (e.g., Switzerland) to an EEA customer (e.g., Germany), the XML tax <ram:CategoryCode> is incorrectly set to 'E' (Exempt) instead of 'G' (Export).

### Steps to reproduce the issue:
1. Download Accounting and l10n_ch
2. Set the VAT for the CH company
3. Create an invoice for a German customer with 0% tax setted (for which you have to set as electronic invoicing the ZUGFeRD template into the Accounting tab of his contact)
4. Send it and see that the tag <ram:CategoryCode> is setted as E instead of G

### Cause of the issue:
The logic assigning the 'G' and 'K' tax category codes was only triggered if the supplier was located within the EEA. If the supplier was outside the EEA, the code bypassed this block entirely and fell back to the default 'E' code for 0% taxes.

### Reason to introduce the fix:
Update the condition to trigger when either the supplier or the customer is in the EEA. This ensures that cross-border transactions involving at least one EEA party correctly evaluate and apply the 'G' (Export outside the EU) category code.  Also the case supplier not in eea with VAT filled in + customer in eea + RC tax with amount != 0 is fixed now (letter G reported instead of S).

### Documentation:
[eInvoicing technical guidance document_v1.pdf](https://github.com/user-attachments/files/30831749/eInvoicing.technical.guidance.document_v1.pdf)


opw-6407399

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