Version: saas-18.3

Reported issue:
1. Marc Demo creates a sign request from a template whose fields are automatically populated from the linked record.
2. It is sent to himself. He does not have access to all records of a referenced model (e.g. Sales Orders).
3. The "Linked To" (reference_doc) field is edited afterwards to point to a record the signer does not have access to. By the time it's signed, the value of that record becomes visible - so a user can, simply by changing the linked record, see the value of a record they were never authorized to access. Even a Sign Manager could link a request to a record they have no access to and later see its value through it.

Issue:
`reference_doc` could be set or changed to any record of any allowed model with no validation that the acting user actually has access to it. In the interface, you can only create a signature request from a record you can see, but editing `reference_doc` manually (via write(), RPC, etc.) was not held to the same rule, making it an easy way to leak information about records outside your normal access.

Cause:
The only restriction was cosmetic, enforced client-side by the record picker widget filtering its search results. Nothing on the server validated the value being written to `reference_doc`.

Fix:
`write()` now checks that the acting user has read access to the target record before allowing `reference_doc` to be set, raising a ValidationError otherwise, bringing manual edits in line with what the interface already enforces when creating a request.

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#127870
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#127715

**Steps to reproduce:**
* Install the **Accounting** module.
* Unhide the **Start Date** and **End Date** fields on invoice lines.
* Create and post a customer invoice with deferred dates.
* Go to **Accounting → Reports → Deferred Revenue Report**.
* Add an annotation to a deferred revenue line by clicking the **annotate** from three dots next to the account.
* Export the report in **XLSX** format.

**Observed behavior:**
* The export fails with a server error: `UnboundLocalError: cannot access local variable 'annotations_x_offset' where it is not associated with a value`

**Cause:**
* The variable `annotations_x_offset` is assigned inside the `for header_level_index, header_level in enumerate(options['column_headers'])` loop, which writes the "Annotations" column header for each header level.
* The Deferred Revenue Report produces an empty `column_headers` list, so the loop body never executes and `annotations_x_offset` is never assigned.
* When the code later tries to write annotation data for each report line, it references the unassigned variable, causing Python to raise `UnboundLocalError`.

**Fix:**
* Introduce a boolean flag `annotations_header_written = False` before the header loop to explicitly track whether the "Annotations" column header has already been written.
* Inside the header loop, set `annotations_header_written = True` after writing the header.
* After writing all individual column headers (where `x_offset` already points to the first free column after all data columns), add a fallback: if `report_annotations` is set but `annotations_header_written` is still `False`, assign `annotations_x_offset` from the current `x_offset` and write the "Annotations" header.

opw-6354473

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#127840
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#122768

## [FIX] planning_field_service: display complete button in popover footer

Before this commit, the complete button is displayed in the card even in
the gantt popover instead of displaying it in the footer of the gantt
popover.

This commit makes sure the complete button in the card is only displayed
in the kanban view and that button is displayed in the footer of the
gantt view.

## [FIX] planning_field_service: adapt onboarding tour based on recent changes

Before this commit, the quick create on resource_ids field in
planning.slot has been replaced by a form view inside a modal.
The Sign in button in gantt/calendar popover no longer automatically
redirects the user to the form view of the intervention and so the user
cannot directly complete the shift.

This commit adapts the onboarding tour based on the recent changes. It
also forces a reload in the gantt view when the user signs in a
intervention via the Sign in button in the gantt popover.

runbot-error-941063
task-[6353582](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project/4105/tasks/6353582)

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Go to Documents app in mobile
- Go to the kanban view
- Add some files and select one
- Click on `Info & Tags` button in the control panel
- Reload the page
- Chatter is not displayed but the button is still enabled
- Switching to the list view properly shows it

**Issue:**
Original fix (see [1]) was not enough for every case. Additional issues:
- Chatter hidden on init even when its panel has `visible = true`
- State desynchronized with the view when switching menu type (kanban/list) or by previewing a document and coming back
- When using the button with an open preview, chatter shows up in the background but is not accessible (and going back discards it)
- Removing selection with an open chatter disable the related action

**Fix:**
- Disable the chatter on mobile init by default to avoid having to manually move it back
- Reset chatter on selection removal to avoid getting stuck in the menu
- Reset chatter on view switch to avoid being in the wrong state afterwards
(and revert the previous css changes)

Not a great fix (quite mobile-specific) and there might still be some edge cases.

[1] original fix: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/cf3c2fce8a6b7b2d7547d44a0e4423f887986d52

opw-6061993

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#121521

Steps to reproduce
---
1. Enable Storage Locations and Lots & Serial Numbers.
2. Add a putaway rule sending a lot-tracked product from WH/Stock to WH/Stock/Shelf 1.
3. Confirm a receipt reserving 2 units of that product; putaway sets the reserved move line destination to WH/Stock/Shelf 1.
4. In the Barcode app, scan a first lot, then a second lot.

The second lot lands on a separate line at WH/Stock instead of WH/Stock/Shelf 1.

Issue
---
The first lot reuses the reserved line and keeps its Shelf 1 destination. The second lot cannot reuse it because its tracking number differs, so `_findLine` returns nothing and `_getNewLineDefaultValues` builds a new line with `location_dest_id` set to `_defaultDestLocation()`, the picking's default destination (WH/Stock).

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/314a79b774f30dc9377b2971492576c4b84483e1/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_picking_model.js#L1591-L1601

Putaway relocates the destination on the move line at reservation, never on the picking, so only the reserved line carries Shelf 1. Since `groupKey` includes `location_dest_id`, the new line does not group with the first lot and shows separately at WH/Stock. This is not a regression: new lines have always defaulted to the operation destination.

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/314a79b774f30dc9377b2971492576c4b84483e1/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_picking_model.js#L239-L241

The new line now inherits the selected line's `location_dest_id`, already relocated by putaway, instead of the default.

opw-6317077

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#127906
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#125309

Steps to reproduce:
---
- Install `website_sale_collect` without demo data.
- Create and publish a product.
- Add the product to the cart and proceed to checkout.
- Complete the main address.
- Select a `Pick Up in Store` delivery method and click checkout.

Issue:
---
The checkout redirects back to the address form instead of continuing to the payment step.

Root cause:
---
During checkout, `shop/checkout`[1] calls `_check_cart_and_addresses()`, which eventually invokes `_check_addresses()`[2]. That method then calls `_check_delivery_address()`[3] to verify that all mandatory delivery address fields are present.

When db is initialized without demo data, the pickup location address may not contain all mandatory fields (such as ZIP code). As a result, the validation fails and the checkout incorrectly redirects the customer back to the address form, even though the delivery address is a pickup location that should not be edited by the customer.

Solution:
---
Override `_can_be_edited_by_current_customer()` to treat the selected pickup location as a non-editable address. Since the pickup location belongs to the store, it does not make sense to ask the customer to edit or complete its address. This prevents the checkout flow from requesting address completion and allows the customer to proceed directly to the payment step.

[1]https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/815de3f1a43bccdb5714436da2060f7a45aa385e/addons/website_sale/controllers/main.py#L1141-L1142
[2]https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/815de3f1a43bccdb5714436da2060f7a45aa385e/addons/website_sale/controllers/main.py#L1894-L1895
[3]https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/815de3f1a43bccdb5714436da2060f7a45aa385e/addons/website_sale/controllers/main.py#L1945

opw-6394166

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277189

Version: saas-18.3

Reported issue:
1. Marc Demo creates a sign request from a template whose fields are automatically populated from the linked record.
2. It is sent to himself. He does not have access to all records of a referenced model (e.g. Sales Orders).
3. The "Linked To" (reference_doc) field is edited afterwards to point to a record the signer does not have access to. By the time it's signed, the value of that record becomes visible - so a user can, simply by changing the linked record, see the value of a record they were never authorized to access. Even a Sign Manager could link a request to a record they have no access to and later see its value through it.

Issue:
`reference_doc` could be set or changed to any record of any allowed model with no validation that the acting user actually has access to it. In the interface, you can only create a signature request from a record you can see, but editing `reference_doc` manually (via write(), RPC, etc.) was not held to the same rule, making it an easy way to leak information about records outside your normal access.

Cause:
The only restriction was cosmetic, enforced client-side by the record picker widget filtering its search results. Nothing on the server validated the value being written to `reference_doc`.

Fix:
`write()` now checks that the acting user has read access to the target record before allowing `reference_doc` to be set, raising a ValidationError otherwise, bringing manual edits in line with what the interface already enforces when creating a request.

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#127870
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#127715

**Steps to reproduce:**
* Install the **Accounting** module.
* Unhide the **Start Date** and **End Date** fields on invoice lines.
* Create and post a customer invoice with deferred dates.
* Go to **Accounting → Reports → Deferred Revenue Report**.
* Add an annotation to a deferred revenue line by clicking the **annotate** from three dots next to the account.
* Export the report in **XLSX** format.

**Observed behavior:**
* The export fails with a server error: `UnboundLocalError: cannot access local variable 'annotations_x_offset' where it is not associated with a value`

**Cause:**
* The variable `annotations_x_offset` is assigned inside the `for header_level_index, header_level in enumerate(options['column_headers'])` loop, which writes the "Annotations" column header for each header level.
* The Deferred Revenue Report produces an empty `column_headers` list, so the loop body never executes and `annotations_x_offset` is never assigned.
* When the code later tries to write annotation data for each report line, it references the unassigned variable, causing Python to raise `UnboundLocalError`.

**Fix:**
* Introduce a boolean flag `annotations_header_written = False` before the header loop to explicitly track whether the "Annotations" column header has already been written.
* Inside the header loop, set `annotations_header_written = True` after writing the header.
* After writing all individual column headers (where `x_offset` already points to the first free column after all data columns), add a fallback: if `report_annotations` is set but `annotations_header_written` is still `False`, assign `annotations_x_offset` from the current `x_offset` and write the "Annotations" header.

opw-6354473

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#127840
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#122768

**Problem:**
Starting the timer on a task that is linked to a sale order item produces a timesheet that is not linked to it, and the Billable toggle is missing from the timer.

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Install Timesheets and Sales
2. Open a task whose Sales Order Item is set
3. Start the timer from the Timesheets systray
4. Save it and open the resulting timesheet

**Current behavior:**
The Sales Order Item is empty. The Billable toggle only appears after removing and re-adding the task in the timer.

**Expected behavior:**
The timer is billable on the task's sale order item as soon as it is opened.

**Cause of the issue:**
`_get_timesheet_pre_filled_form_data` returns only `project_id` and `task_id`. The timer form merges that pre-fill over `timesheet_default_values`, which `lazy_session_info` computes once per session from `account.analytic.line.new()`
- a record with no project and no task, so `so_line`, `allow_billable` and `has_available_so` are all `False` in it. Because the pre-fill carries none of those keys, they keep the task-independent session values: the timesheet stays unlinked from the sale order item, and the Billable toggle stays hidden since it is displayed from `has_available_so`.

**Fix:**
The pre-fill endpoint is the only place that knows which task the timer is being opened on, so it is where the task-dependent values have to be resolved. Reading them off a new timesheet built with that project and task keeps the endpoint generic - it returns whatever `_get_aw_timesheet_fields_specification` declares, so the sale fields stay owned by sale_timesheet_enterprise rather than being named in timesheet_grid.

Dropping the session defaults instead was rejected: they are also the only source of `date`, `user_id` and `company_id` for the timer record, and removing them makes saving fail on the required Date field.

opw-6423577

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#127800

Steps to reproduce
---
1. Enable Storage Locations and Lots & Serial Numbers.
2. Add a putaway rule sending a lot-tracked product from WH/Stock to WH/Stock/Shelf 1.
3. Confirm a receipt reserving 2 units of that product; putaway sets the reserved move line destination to WH/Stock/Shelf 1.
4. In the Barcode app, scan a first lot, then a second lot.

The second lot lands on a separate line at WH/Stock instead of WH/Stock/Shelf 1.

Issue
---
The first lot reuses the reserved line and keeps its Shelf 1 destination. The second lot cannot reuse it because its tracking number differs, so `_findLine` returns nothing and `_getNewLineDefaultValues` builds a new line with `location_dest_id` set to `_defaultDestLocation()`, the picking's default destination (WH/Stock).

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/314a79b774f30dc9377b2971492576c4b84483e1/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_picking_model.js#L1591-L1601

Putaway relocates the destination on the move line at reservation, never on the picking, so only the reserved line carries Shelf 1. Since `groupKey` includes `location_dest_id`, the new line does not group with the first lot and shows separately at WH/Stock. This is not a regression: new lines have always defaulted to the operation destination.

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/314a79b774f30dc9377b2971492576c4b84483e1/stock_barcode/static/src/models/barcode_picking_model.js#L239-L241

The new line now inherits the selected line's `location_dest_id`, already relocated by putaway, instead of the default.

opw-6317077

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#127704
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#125309

### 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#126818
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124245

Steps to reproduce
---
- Log in as a user with "User: all timesheets" access rights.
- Open the assistant rules list or kanban view.
- Create a new assistant rule.

Issue
---
- Normal users get an Access Error saying "Only Timesheet Administrators are allowed
  to modify the 'Shared With' field." The create and write methods check for shared_user_ids
  in the values. When creating a rule, this field is also set by default to the current user,
  so the check incorrectly blocks the creation.
- An Access Error is raised when a user tries to duplicate a rule they don't have access to.
- In the kanban view, using the avatar widget raises an Access Error instead of being read-only.

Expected behavior
---
- Users should be able to create their own assistant rules.
- shared_user_ids field should be read-only for non-admins.
- Users should be able to duplicate a rule they don't have access to, with themselves set as "Shared With".
- The avatar widget should be read-only for non-admins.

Fix
---
- Move the validation to a constraint on shared_user_ids.
- Override copy_data to set shared_user_ids to the current user for non-admins.
- Make the kanban avatar widget read-only for non-admins.

saas-19.4 replaced the "Shared With" mechanism with an "Applies To" field to control which employees a rule applies to
Related - https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/117235

task-6460116

## Issue
When filtering projects using the "Timesheets >100%" filter, some projects with negative remaining hours (and with their `is_project_overtime` field set to True) won't be displayed, even though their expected hours are completed.

This happens with projects which have tasks set to the "Done" or "Cancelled" state. The timesheets entries in those tasks are not taken into account when searching using the "Timesheets >100%" filter.

## Steps to reproduce
1. Install *Task Logs* (`hr_timesheet`)
2. Create a Project P (with Timehseets enabled)
3. Set the allocated hours of the project to 3:00 (3 hours)
4. Create two tasks:
    - T1: State "In progress", and one timesheet entry of 2:00 (2 hours)
    - T2: State "Done", and one timesheet entry of 2:00 (2 hours)
5. Back to the project view, set the filter to "Timesheets >100%"
6. **Project P is not shown, even though the total time spent on the project is 4 hours, completing the allocated hours set on the project.**

## Cause
The `_search_is_project_overtime` method filters out the tasks in "closed" states (Done/Cancelled) when computing the amount of time spent on the project.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/126b5bdd1e85771549198976f8570cd2ff167608/addons/hr_timesheet/models/project_project.py#L103-L114

This does not match with the behavior of the `_compute_is_project_overtime`, which does not take into account the state of the tasks to determine the value of the field:

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/126b5bdd1e85771549198976f8570cd2ff167608/addons/hr_timesheet/models/project_project.py#L85-L94

This leads to a confusing behavior, where a project can have its `is_project_overtime` field set to True, but will still not be shown when using the "Timsheets >100%", even though that filter is defined as `[("is_project_overtime", "=", True)]`.

The compute method was updated by https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/d4252825f52a3172420dcda0ea394e42da9f8853, but the related search method was left unchanged, leading to this slight incoherence between the two methods.

opw-6422173

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#282338
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#281997

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Install Accounting
2. Import a new invoice with more than 1000 lines (xlsx file found in ticket attachments)
3. Test the imported records

**Issue:**
- `RecursionError: maximum recursion depth exceeded`.

**Cause:**
- In a previous commit (3e32d7b9eace62dfa7334009707a93967906c726) aimed at fixing stale analytic distribution totals, the assignment loop in `_compute_discount_allocation_needed` was changed from iterating over `self` to `self.move_id.line_ids`.
- While this ensured all lines generated updated distribution ratios, it violated the compute logic: assigning values to records outside the current compute batch (`self`).
- By executing `line.discount_allocation_dirty = True` on external sibling lines, the method forced the ORM to trigger out-of-band `write()` calls. These writes re-triggered dependency checks (`_field_will_change`), which invoked the compute method again, leading to a recursive loop.

**Fix:**
1. Revert the assignment iteration back to `for line in self:`.
2. To preserve the intention of the previous commit (ensuring all lines recompute their shared distribution pool when one line changes), modify the method's `@api.depends` to be `move_id.line_ids.discount` and `move_id.line_ids.analytic_distribution`.

By declaring these relational dependencies, modifying a single line now batches all sibling lines into `self` from the start. This allows the lines to synchronize properly without triggering new ORM writes, eliminating the recursion.

opw-6451854

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#282050

Steps to reproduce
---
1. Create and confirm a sale order.
2. Create a down payment invoice on it and post it: the down payment line reads "Down Payment (ref: INV/... on ...)".
3. Open that invoice and use Reverse and Create Invoice, then post the newly created draft down payment invoice.
4. Open the sale order: the down payment line has lost its reference and now reads only "Down Payment", and that empty label also carries over to the down payment section when generating the final invoice.

Issue
---
The down payment line description is built by `_get_downpayment_description`, which only produces the "Down Payment (ref: ... on ...)" label when exactly one customer invoice is linked to the down payment `sale.order.line`, guarded by `len(invoice) == 1`.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/3a5f7431effd4b2b2eb8ce3eed81aaba42fcd8ea/addons/sale/models/sale_order_line.py#L484-L509

Reverse and Create Invoice runs `account.move.reversal.modify_moves`, which copies the reversed invoice with `include_business_fields=True`, so the copied line keeps its `sale_line_ids` and the new draft invoice is attached to the very same down payment line as the reversed original.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/3a5f7431effd4b2b2eb8ce3eed81aaba42fcd8ea/addons/account/wizard/account_move_reversal.py#L142-L149

That down payment line then references two `out_invoice` moves (the reversed one and the re-issued one), so `len(invoice) == 1` is false and the label silently falls back to the bare "Down Payment", losing the reference that the final invoice's down payment section reuses. Going back to the sale order to raise a fresh down payment instead creates a new line, which keeps a single invoice and is why the slower flow is unaffected. The `len(invoice) == 1` guard was introduced in ba954604e529. Discarding the reversed invoice (`payment_state == 'reversed'`) leaves the active re-issued invoice as the single match, so its reference is shown again; when the only linked invoice is itself reversed, the fallback keeps displaying it so existing descriptions are preserved.

opw-6353384

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277802

### Steps to reproduce:

- Enable "Lots & Serial Numbers" in the Inventory settings
- Create a storable product tracked by lots
- Create a lot for that product and leave it without any quantity
- Open the lot form > cog menu > Scrap
#### > ValueError: Expected singleton: stock.location()

### Cause of the issue:

A lot is only given a `location_id` when all its positive quants lay in a single location, so a lot with no quant at all has none: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/8b8852f1c3ae5b78a4a3e99c99eacab83f0be5c9/addons/stock/models/stock_lot.py#L169-L172 The `action_scrap` nevertheless always forwards that value to the scrap move, so the form is opened with `default_location_id` set to `False`: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/8b8852f1c3ae5b78a4a3e99c99eacab83f0be5c9/addons/stock/models/stock_lot.py#L415-L426

Now, the issue is that the `_onchange_lot_ids` of the new stock move then evaluates the reservation of a move whose source location is still empty which raises the traceback because of a `self.ensure_one` required on the location to determine if the move `should_bypass_reservation`: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/8b8852f1c3ae5b78a4a3e99c99eacab83f0be5c9/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1515 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/8b8852f1c3ae5b78a4a3e99c99eacab83f0be5c9/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1989-L1992 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/8b8852f1c3ae5b78a4a3e99c99eacab83f0be5c9/addons/stock/models/stock_location.py#L414-L416

Note that if the default key was not present, the traceback would not be triggered and the scrap would be performed from the `default_stock_location` of the company:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/4c4219a7d9d51f703b15e83ab755faf1f2c8a71d/addons/stock/models/res_company.py#L21-L22

Indeed the issue is that the `default_get` looks the context key up by *membership*, so that a falsy `default_location_id` is still returned as a default value for the field if provided:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/8b8852f1c3ae5b78a4a3e99c99eacab83f0be5c9/odoo/orm/models.py#L1313-L1317 And therefore will not be computed in the first onchange: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/8b8852f1c3ae5b78a4a3e99c99eacab83f0be5c9/addons/web/models/models.py#L1974-L1988

Note:

The `stock.lot.action_scrap`, and this `default_location_id` line with it, were introduced by 1c7d80a10b5d, which replaced the `stock.scrap` model by scrap `stock.move` records. That commit is only present from saas-19.2 onwards, so earlier versions are not affected.

opw-6441937

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280666

**Problem:**
Starting the timer on a task that is linked to a sale order item produces a timesheet that is not linked to it, and the Billable toggle is missing from the timer.

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Install Timesheets and Sales
2. Open a task whose Sales Order Item is set
3. Start the timer from the Timesheets systray
4. Save it and open the resulting timesheet

**Current behavior:**
The Sales Order Item is empty. The Billable toggle only appears after removing and re-adding the task in the timer.

**Expected behavior:**
The timer is billable on the task's sale order item as soon as it is opened.

**Cause of the issue:**
`_get_timesheet_pre_filled_form_data` returns only `project_id` and `task_id`. The timer form merges that pre-fill over `timesheet_default_values`, which `lazy_session_info` computes once per session from `account.analytic.line.new()`
- a record with no project and no task, so `so_line`, `allow_billable` and `has_available_so` are all `False` in it. Because the pre-fill carries none of those keys, they keep the task-independent session values: the timesheet stays unlinked from the sale order item, and the Billable toggle stays hidden since it is displayed from `has_available_so`.

**Fix:**
The pre-fill endpoint is the only place that knows which task the timer is being opened on, so it is where the task-dependent values have to be resolved. Reading them off a new timesheet built with that project and task keeps the endpoint generic - it returns whatever `_get_aw_timesheet_fields_specification` declares, so the sale fields stay owned by sale_timesheet_enterprise rather than being named in timesheet_grid.

Dropping the session defaults instead was rejected: they are also the only source of `date`, `user_id` and `company_id` for the timer record, and removing them makes saving fail on the required Date field.

opw-6423577

A running task/ticket timer can sometimes stutter, show negative values, and track the wrong elapsed time.

### Steps to reproduce

On a record with a timesheet timer (for example, a Field Service task):

1. Start the timer and let it run for about 15-20 seconds.
2. Stop it and confirm the dialog.
3. Start it again. This creates a new `timer_start`.
4. Reload the page.

The timer starts jumping every second between two different values. As it keeps running, it can even show negative values such as `00:00:-57`.

If the problem does not appear right away, repeat steps 2-4 a few times. It usually shows up after a few stop/start/reload cycles.

### Cause

The timer shown in the button bar is the `timer_start_field` widget. It starts a `setInterval` that updates a shared `TimerReactive` object once per second.

While a form is loading, Odoo renders it several times in a row (for example: a first render, another when the chatter is loaded, and another when the record data comes back from the server). Rendering a form builds all of its fields to produce the display, so each of these renders creates its own `timer_start_field`. Odoo keeps and mounts only the render that ends up on screen; the earlier ones are thrown away before being mounted.

The interval is started while the field renders, from the record observer set up in `setup`, before the field is mounted. So the fields that are later thrown away also start an interval. Those intervals keep running for the rest of the session. Each one updates the same shared `TimerReactive` object using the `timer_start` it was created with.

As long as every instance has the same `timer_start`, they all write the same value and the problem stays hidden. After the timer is stopped and started again, the old instances keep the old `timer_start` while the mounted one uses the new one. Every second they overwrite each other's value, so the timer jumps between two different elapsed times. When the instance with the newer `timer_start` writes right after one with an older start, it tries to show a smaller elapsed time than what is already there, and the subtraction in `TimerReactive` produces a negative number of seconds.

### Fix

Move the per-second timer update into a `useEffect`. The effect only runs after the field is mounted, and Owl automatically cleans it up when the field is unmounted or when `timer_start` or `timer_pause` change.

This means fields that are destroyed before they are mounted never start an interval, so only the mounted field updates the shared timer.

`onRecordChange` no longer starts or stops the interval. It only updates the displayed timer value to match the current record.

opw-6209405

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#126242

Steps to reproduce:

- Create a product with a bom and 2 operations
- Create an MO for 1 unit of that product
- Confirm the MO
- On the bom, delete the second operation and modify the first operation on anything else than the company, name or workcenter
- Go back to the MO, click the "Update Bom" button
> The second operation is not unlinked and the first operation is not
  updated

Cause of the issue:

The `action_update_bom` updates the move raws and operations of the MO via the `_link_bom`:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f66614193cce18f5a3298d03ce7e5f29d54f07e9/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L1214-L1218 For draft MO's all the work of these updates is done via the compute methods and by deleting all the records unrelevant to the new bom: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f66614193cce18f5a3298d03ce7e5f29d54f07e9/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L2603-L2626 And, in that case all the workorders that are not linked to an operation of the bom are expected to be deleted. However, when the MO is not in draft, the update of operations is expected to be performed here: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f66614193cce18f5a3298d03ce7e5f29d54f07e9/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L2647-L2664 However, since the operation of the bom has been deleted, the workorder that is expected to be deleted is not linked to any operation and hence does not satisfy the condition to be deleted:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f66614193cce18f5a3298d03ce7e5f29d54f07e9/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L2663-L2664 Concerning the non update of operations, it happens because the MO's operation are only updated on the three fields: `company_id`, `workcenter_id`, `name`:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/31df5033e31c193b4576ef37dfbc5fc683817bc5/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L2647-L2664 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/31df5033e31c193b4576ef37dfbc5fc683817bc5/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L2628-L2629 However, many other cahnges can and are actually relevant.

Note:

Prior to commit 80e6ed658fb43584bc2fad673ca40d9af6cf0ab6 operations were archived on boms rather than deleted:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/4a5270218fe6fd7d30edb6d684b3340dc7423bab/addons/mrp/views/mrp_routing_views.xml#L53-L55 As such they would still be linked to an operation (but unrelated to the present values of the bom) and hence would fall into the condition of being unlinked from the MO.

Since the bom operations are no longer archived there is no way to determine if an operation used to be linked to a bom and we therefore need to chose between deleting all operations unrelated to the present bom or to keep them all (when the MO has been confirmed).

Community: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/269747

opw-6285878
opw-6261738

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#122746
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120709

## Issue
When filtering projects using the "Timesheets >100%" filter, some projects with negative remaining hours (and with their `is_project_overtime` field set to True) won't be displayed, even though their expected hours are completed.

This happens with projects which have tasks set to the "Done" or "Cancelled" state. The timesheets entries in those tasks are not taken into account when searching using the "Timesheets >100%" filter.

## Steps to reproduce
1. Install *Task Logs* (`hr_timesheet`)
2. Create a Project P (with Timehseets enabled)
3. Set the allocated hours of the project to 3:00 (3 hours)
4. Create two tasks:
    - T1: State "In progress", and one timesheet entry of 2:00 (2 hours)
    - T2: State "Done", and one timesheet entry of 2:00 (2 hours)
5. Back to the project view, set the filter to "Timesheets >100%"
6. **Project P is not shown, even though the total time spent on the project is 4 hours, completing the allocated hours set on the project.**

## Cause
The `_search_is_project_overtime` method filters out the tasks in "closed" states (Done/Cancelled) when computing the amount of time spent on the project.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/126b5bdd1e85771549198976f8570cd2ff167608/addons/hr_timesheet/models/project_project.py#L103-L114

This does not match with the behavior of the `_compute_is_project_overtime`, which does not take into account the state of the tasks to determine the value of the field:

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/126b5bdd1e85771549198976f8570cd2ff167608/addons/hr_timesheet/models/project_project.py#L85-L94

This leads to a confusing behavior, where a project can have its `is_project_overtime` field set to True, but will still not be shown when using the "Timsheets >100%", even though that filter is defined as `[("is_project_overtime", "=", True)]`.

The compute method was updated by https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/d4252825f52a3172420dcda0ea394e42da9f8853, but the related search method was left unchanged, leading to this slight incoherence between the two methods.

opw-6422173

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#282338
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#281997

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Install Accounting
2. Import a new invoice with more than 1000 lines (xlsx file found in ticket attachments)
3. Test the imported records

**Issue:**
- `RecursionError: maximum recursion depth exceeded`.

**Cause:**
- In a previous commit (3e32d7b9eace62dfa7334009707a93967906c726) aimed at fixing stale analytic distribution totals, the assignment loop in `_compute_discount_allocation_needed` was changed from iterating over `self` to `self.move_id.line_ids`.
- While this ensured all lines generated updated distribution ratios, it violated the compute logic: assigning values to records outside the current compute batch (`self`).
- By executing `line.discount_allocation_dirty = True` on external sibling lines, the method forced the ORM to trigger out-of-band `write()` calls. These writes re-triggered dependency checks (`_field_will_change`), which invoked the compute method again, leading to a recursive loop.

**Fix:**
1. Revert the assignment iteration back to `for line in self:`.
2. To preserve the intention of the previous commit (ensuring all lines recompute their shared distribution pool when one line changes), modify the method's `@api.depends` to be `move_id.line_ids.discount` and `move_id.line_ids.analytic_distribution`.

By declaring these relational dependencies, modifying a single line now batches all sibling lines into `self` from the start. This allows the lines to synchronize properly without triggering new ORM writes, eliminating the recursion.

opw-6451854

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#282050

A running task/ticket timer can sometimes stutter, show negative values, and track the wrong elapsed time.

### Steps to reproduce

On a record with a timesheet timer (for example, a Field Service task):

1. Start the timer and let it run for about 15-20 seconds.
2. Stop it and confirm the dialog.
3. Start it again. This creates a new `timer_start`.
4. Reload the page.

The timer starts jumping every second between two different values. As it keeps running, it can even show negative values such as `00:00:-57`.

If the problem does not appear right away, repeat steps 2-4 a few times. It usually shows up after a few stop/start/reload cycles.

### Cause

The timer shown in the button bar is the `timer_start_field` widget. It starts a `setInterval` that updates a shared `TimerReactive` object once per second.

While a form is loading, Odoo renders it several times in a row (for example: a first render, another when the chatter is loaded, and another when the record data comes back from the server). Rendering a form builds all of its fields to produce the display, so each of these renders creates its own `timer_start_field`. Odoo keeps and mounts only the render that ends up on screen; the earlier ones are thrown away before being mounted.

The interval is started while the field renders, from the record observer set up in `setup`, before the field is mounted. So the fields that are later thrown away also start an interval. Those intervals keep running for the rest of the session. Each one updates the same shared `TimerReactive` object using the `timer_start` it was created with.

As long as every instance has the same `timer_start`, they all write the same value and the problem stays hidden. After the timer is stopped and started again, the old instances keep the old `timer_start` while the mounted one uses the new one. Every second they overwrite each other's value, so the timer jumps between two different elapsed times. When the instance with the newer `timer_start` writes right after one with an older start, it tries to show a smaller elapsed time than what is already there, and the subtraction in `TimerReactive` produces a negative number of seconds.

### Fix

Move the per-second timer update into a `useEffect`. The effect only runs after the field is mounted, and Owl automatically cleans it up when the field is unmounted or when `timer_start` or `timer_pause` change.

This means fields that are destroyed before they are mounted never start an interval, so only the mounted field updates the shared timer.

`onRecordChange` no longer starts or stops the interval. It only updates the displayed timer value to match the current record.

opw-6209405

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#126242

When a recurring product (with `allow_one_time_sale = True`) is sold as a one-time purchase (no subscription plan), the stock forecast report and replenishment logic incorrectly treat it as an active subscription. This results in infinite projected future outgoing moves for standard sales.

This occurs because the logic only checks if `recurring_invoice` is True on the product, ignoring whether the parent order actually has a `plan_id`.

This commit fixes the issue by:
1. Updating `_get_stock_subscription_lines` in `sale.order.line` to filter out lines using `_subscription_is_one_time_sale()`.
2. Updating the domains in `stock.forecasted_product_product` to require `order_id.plan_id != False` for subscription forecasts, while correctly routing one-time sales (`order_id.plan_id == False`) back to the standard sale domain.
3. Adapting existing tests to verify that one-time sales do not generate future subscription stock forecasts.

Task-6193648

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#116889

## Issue
When filtering projects using the "Timesheets >100%" filter, some projects with negative remaining hours (and with their `is_project_overtime` field set to True) won't be displayed, even though their expected hours are completed.

This happens with projects which have tasks set to the "Done" or "Cancelled" state. The timesheets entries in those tasks are not taken into account when searching using the "Timesheets >100%" filter.

## Steps to reproduce
1. Install *Task Logs* (`hr_timesheet`)
2. Create a Project P (with Timehseets enabled)
3. Set the allocated hours of the project to 3:00 (3 hours)
4. Create two tasks:
    - T1: State "In progress", and one timesheet entry of 2:00 (2 hours)
    - T2: State "Done", and one timesheet entry of 2:00 (2 hours)
5. Back to the project view, set the filter to "Timesheets >100%"
6. **Project P is not shown, even though the total time spent on the project is 4 hours, completing the allocated hours set on the project.**

## Cause
The `_search_is_project_overtime` method filters out the tasks in "closed" states (Done/Cancelled) when computing the amount of time spent on the project.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/126b5bdd1e85771549198976f8570cd2ff167608/addons/hr_timesheet/models/project_project.py#L103-L114

This does not match with the behavior of the `_compute_is_project_overtime`, which does not take into account the state of the tasks to determine the value of the field:

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/126b5bdd1e85771549198976f8570cd2ff167608/addons/hr_timesheet/models/project_project.py#L85-L94

This leads to a confusing behavior, where a project can have its `is_project_overtime` field set to True, but will still not be shown when using the "Timsheets >100%", even though that filter is defined as `[("is_project_overtime", "=", True)]`.

The compute method was updated by https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/d4252825f52a3172420dcda0ea394e42da9f8853, but the related search method was left unchanged, leading to this slight incoherence between the two methods.

opw-6422173

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#282338
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#281997

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Install Accounting
2. Import a new invoice with more than 1000 lines (xlsx file found in ticket attachments)
3. Test the imported records

**Issue:**
- `RecursionError: maximum recursion depth exceeded`.

**Cause:**
- In a previous commit (3e32d7b9eace62dfa7334009707a93967906c726) aimed at fixing stale analytic distribution totals, the assignment loop in `_compute_discount_allocation_needed` was changed from iterating over `self` to `self.move_id.line_ids`.
- While this ensured all lines generated updated distribution ratios, it violated the compute logic: assigning values to records outside the current compute batch (`self`).
- By executing `line.discount_allocation_dirty = True` on external sibling lines, the method forced the ORM to trigger out-of-band `write()` calls. These writes re-triggered dependency checks (`_field_will_change`), which invoked the compute method again, leading to a recursive loop.

**Fix:**
1. Revert the assignment iteration back to `for line in self:`.
2. To preserve the intention of the previous commit (ensuring all lines recompute their shared distribution pool when one line changes), modify the method's `@api.depends` to be `move_id.line_ids.discount` and `move_id.line_ids.analytic_distribution`.

By declaring these relational dependencies, modifying a single line now batches all sibling lines into `self` from the start. This allows the lines to synchronize properly without triggering new ORM writes, eliminating the recursion.

opw-6451854

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#282050

Steps to reproduce:
- Have a paid order with a product ordered once
- Open the ticket screen, select that order and its line
- Scan a product barcode with a keyboard-wedge scanner

Issue:
"Maximum Exceeded - The requested quantity to be refunded is higher than the ordered quantity. 6 is requested while only 1 can be refunded." When the line holds enough quantity no dialog is shown at all and a refund quantity taken from the barcode is silently set.

Cause:
A keyboard-wedge scanner types the barcode as a burst of keystrokes. The number buffer discards such bursts by waiting
barcodeService.maxTimeBetweenKeysInMs before handling the keys it collected and dropping any batch of more than two, but only when its holder asks for it with `useWithBarcode`. TicketScreen never set the flag, so its buffer handled every keystroke on its own and the digits of the barcode reached _setToRefundDetail as the refund quantity. ProductScreen, OrderSummary and PaymentScreen all set it.

Fix:
Set `useWithBarcode: true` on the ticket screen number buffer. Since the keys are now handled with a delay, capture the buffer before the selected order or orderline changes, so that a keystroke is applied to the line that was selected when it was typed and not to the next one.

opw-6465148

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#281962

**Steps to reproduce**
- Open any MO
- Click on 'catalog'
- Click on the three dots button of any product
- Try to edit
-> Traceback: `"product.product"."state" field is undefined.`

**Cause**
The `move_raw_ids` field on the MO form sets a context with `form_view_ref: 'mrp.view_mrp_stock_move_operations'`, so that editing a component's `stock.move` line in place opens that dedicated view: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/20db2910d16fa6ebd07794fb9ed3fb1c8f57b0fc/addons/mrp/views/mrp_production_views.xml#L411-L417 The 'Catalog' button lives inside that same field, and calls `action_add_from_catalog_raw`, which delegates to the mixin's `action_add_from_catalog`: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/3dd41395e2e4205fa477eb474d4a4dba0a976154/addons/product/models/product_catalog_mixin.py#L17 Which conserve the `'form_view_ref'` from context: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/3dd41395e2e4205fa477eb474d4a4dba0a976154/addons/product/models/product_catalog_mixin.py#L28 and that action requests its form view with `view_id=False`: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/3dd41395e2e4205fa477eb474d4a4dba0a976154/addons/product/models/product_catalog_mixin.py#L25 Which will try to load `view_mrp_stock_move_operations`, since: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/3dd41395e2e4205fa477eb474d4a4dba0a976154/odoo/addons/base/models/ir_ui_view.py#L3002-L3005 `_get_view` never checks that the resolved view's `model` matches the model it was asked for, so it returns `view_mrp_stock_move_operations`for the `product.product` model: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/3dd41395e2e4205fa477eb474d4a4dba0a976154/addons/mrp/views/stock_move_views.xml#L41 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/3dd41395e2e4205fa477eb474d4a4dba0a976154/addons/stock/views/stock_move_views.xml#L128 `state` doesn't exist on `product.product`, hence the crash.

opw-6433620

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#279811

Steps to reproduce:
1. Install Documents
2. In the Documents list view, select a document to display the inspector.
3. Edit a field such as Owner or Customer which uses a Many2one widget.
4. In the field dropdown, click "Search More..." to open a modal dialog.
5. Click inside the "Search More..." modal (e.g., to sort columns or resize headers).

Issue:
- The modal dialog immediately closes, and the contact cannot be selected.

Root cause:
- When an inspector field is edited, the record row is put into edit mode. While in edit mode, the documents list renderer listens for global clicks. Clicking inside the "Search More..." modal dialog targets elements that have `.o_list_renderer` (since the modal dialog renders a list view). Because the click target is within a list renderer but is not a document row, `DocumentsListRenderer.onGlobalClick` executes and clears the selection of the main list view. Clearing the selection unmounts the edited field in the inspector, thereby destroying the modal dialog stack.

Solution:
- Modify DocumentsListRenderer.onGlobalClick to scope click handling to the current Documents list renderer.
Ignore clicks outside this.root.el, so interactions in nested UI such as Search More... do not clear
the main selection and destroy the inspector field.


opw-6253360

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#127557
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#119262

Before this commit:
---

Due to changes introduced in the Odoo 18 [`expression.combine`](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/160979/changes#diff-fa4d9268d6e65e19aebec81c46038f0e496b91142588ed4d1c1bce7ff2338f2c) function, an empty domain ([]) is evaluated as True. As a result, [`attendance_domain`](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/1073447ba56e2cc69177ee0ac8eab36d63d907bc/addons/hr_attendance/models/hr_attendance.py#L378), which is initially [], is [OR-ed](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/1073447ba56e2cc69177ee0ac8eab36d63d907bc/addons/hr_attendance/models/hr_attendance.py#L380) with the date conditions, causing the expression True OR X to always evaluate to True.

Consequently, the date filters are never added to the domain, and the final domain becomes:

[('employee_id', '=', 28)]

This causes all attendance records for the employee to be fetched and processed, regardless of the requested date range, unnecessarily increasing computation time.

### Before the fix : 
```python
(Pdb) attendance_domain = []
(Pdb) attendance_date
(datetime.datetime(2026, 8, 3, 18, 30), datetime.date(2026, 8, 4))
(Pdb) attendance_domain = OR([attendance_domain, [('check_in', '>=', attendance_date[0]), ('check_in', '<', attendance_date[0] + timedelta(hours=24)),]])
(Pdb) attendance_domain
[(1, '=', 1)]
(Pdb) attendance_domain = AND([[('employee_id', '=', emp.id)], attendance_domain])
(Pdb) attendance_domain
[('employee_id', '=', 28)]
(Pdb) 
```

After this commit:
---

attendance_domain is initialized with FALSE_DOMAIN instead of an empty domain. This ensures that the OR operation correctly incorporates the date conditions, producing the expected domain and limiting the query to the relevant attendance records.

### After the fix :
```python
(Pdb) attendance_domain = expression.FALSE_DOMAIN
(Pdb) attendance_domain
((0, '=', 1),)
(Pdb) attendance_date
(datetime.datetime(2026, 8, 3, 18, 30), datetime.date(2026, 8, 4))
(Pdb) attendance_domain = OR([attendance_domain, [('check_in', '>=', attendance_date[0]), ('check_in', '<', attendance_date[0] + timedelta(hours=24)),]])
(Pdb) attendance_domain
['&', ('check_in', '>=', datetime.datetime(2026, 8, 3, 18, 30)), ('check_in', '<', datetime.datetime(2026, 8, 4, 18, 30))]
(Pdb) attendance_domain = AND([[('employee_id', '=', emp.id)], attendance_domain])
(Pdb) attendance_domain
['&', ('employee_id', '=', 28), '&', ('check_in', '>=', datetime.datetime(2026, 8, 3, 18, 30)), ('check_in', '<', datetime.datetime(2026, 8, 4, 18, 30))]


```

OPW: 6385811


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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#281115

Version: saas-18.3

Reported issue:
1. Marc Demo creates a sign request from a template whose fields are automatically populated from the linked record.
2. It is sent to himself. He does not have access to all records of a referenced model (e.g. Sales Orders).
3. The "Linked To" (reference_doc) field is edited afterwards to point to a record the signer does not have access to. By the time it's signed, the value of that record becomes visible - so a user can, simply by changing the linked record, see the value of a record they were never authorized to access. Even a Sign Manager could link a request to a record they have no access to and later see its value through it.

Issue:
`reference_doc` could be set or changed to any record of any allowed model with no validation that the acting user actually has access to it. In the interface, you can only create a signature request from a record you can see, but editing `reference_doc` manually (via write(), RPC, etc.) was not held to the same rule, making it an easy way to leak information about records outside your normal access.

Cause:
The only restriction was cosmetic, enforced client-side by the record picker widget filtering its search results. Nothing on the server validated the value being written to `reference_doc`.

Fix:
`write()` now checks that the acting user has read access to the target record before allowing `reference_doc` to be set, raising a ValidationError otherwise, bringing manual edits in line with what the interface already enforces when creating a request.

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#127870
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#127715

**Steps to reproduce:**
* Install the **Accounting** module.
* Unhide the **Start Date** and **End Date** fields on invoice lines.
* Create and post a customer invoice with deferred dates.
* Go to **Accounting → Reports → Deferred Revenue Report**.
* Add an annotation to a deferred revenue line by clicking the **annotate** from three dots next to the account.
* Export the report in **XLSX** format.

**Observed behavior:**
* The export fails with a server error: `UnboundLocalError: cannot access local variable 'annotations_x_offset' where it is not associated with a value`

**Cause:**
* The variable `annotations_x_offset` is assigned inside the `for header_level_index, header_level in enumerate(options['column_headers'])` loop, which writes the "Annotations" column header for each header level.
* The Deferred Revenue Report produces an empty `column_headers` list, so the loop body never executes and `annotations_x_offset` is never assigned.
* When the code later tries to write annotation data for each report line, it references the unassigned variable, causing Python to raise `UnboundLocalError`.

**Fix:**
* Introduce a boolean flag `annotations_header_written = False` before the header loop to explicitly track whether the "Annotations" column header has already been written.
* Inside the header loop, set `annotations_header_written = True` after writing the header.
* After writing all individual column headers (where `x_offset` already points to the first free column after all data columns), add a fallback: if `report_annotations` is set but `annotations_header_written` is still `False`, assign `annotations_x_offset` from the current `x_offset` and write the "Annotations" header.

opw-6354473

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#127840
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#122768

When the AI agent switched from another view to a pivot view, the pivot view could crash or open without any active measures.

The AI controller patch applies the agent's adjustments upon receiving the `APPLY_AI_ADJUST_MODEL` bus event. However, the event could be processed while the pivot model was still executing `_loadData()`.

In that case, the following sequence occurred:

* `_loadData()` started and awaited.
* The controller patch was executed.
* The patch called `toggleMeasures()`.
* `toggleMeasures()` waited for `_loadData()` to complete.
* `_loadData()` finished and updated the metadata with the available measures.
* `toggleMeasures()` resumed and wrote back the metadata snapshot it had taken before waiting.

Since `toggleMeasures()` operates on a snapshot of the metadata, the measures populated by `_loadData()` were lost when the snapshot replaced the current metadata, leaving the pivot model without its `measures` metadata and causing the view to crash.

Prevent this race condition by waiting for the pivot model initialization to complete before applying the AI adjustments.

Also preserve the default active measures when the AI agent does not explicitly request any measures instead of clearing them and opening an empty pivot view.

task-6384368

### Steps to reproduce the issue:
1. Download Sales, accounting and l10n_mx
2. Go to settings and be sure that in electonic invoicing the PAC is set on Quadrum and the Testing box is activated (no username and no password needed)
4. Create a SO quotation with a product and confirm it
5. Create a downpayment invoice for that quotation and be sure that the Payment way is selected
6. Send to CFDI
7. Click Request Cancel button and select reason 01
8. Then click create replacement invoice, confirm the new one and send it to CFDI
9. Go back to the first invoice created and click request cancel (you will have only 1 choice in the dropdown menu) and confirm it
10. See that in the CFDI page the request is sent
11. Wait 7 min and and then in the CFDI page click "retry" in the line of Cancel in Error state
12. Invoice is cancelled

### Issue before this commit:
In the SO we can now see that the down payment invoice amount is still considering both the invoices even if the first one has been canceled. After the original downpayment invoice is successfully cancelled on the SAT side, the Sales Order continues to consider both the original and the replacement downpayment invoices. This results in the Downpayment line on the Sales Order showing a price_unit that is the sum of the two downpayments.

### Cause of the issue:
The _compute_price_unit method on the sale.order.line model does not take the Mexican CFDI state (l10n_mx_edi_cfdi_state) into consideration. It only checks if the associated invoices are in a posted state. During the SAT cancellation flow for downpayments, the accounting move often remains in a posted state because of its reconciled payment (the system silently passes the UserError triggered during the accounting cancellation). Since both the cancelled original invoice and the replacement invoice remain posted at the accounting level, the _compute_price_unit logic sums both of them.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/cbabc49d8004b32be12d834dd370672815087a2b/addons/sale/models/sale_order_line.py#L561-L562

### Reason to introduce the fix:
To ensure that Sales Orders accurately reflect the legal and financial reality for Mexican operations without requiring manual adjustments by the user.

opw-6334903

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Install Accounting
2. Import a new invoice with more than 1000 lines (xlsx file found in ticket attachments)
3. Test the imported records

**Issue:**
- `RecursionError: maximum recursion depth exceeded`.

**Cause:**
- In a previous commit (3e32d7b9eace62dfa7334009707a93967906c726) aimed at fixing stale analytic distribution totals, the assignment loop in `_compute_discount_allocation_needed` was changed from iterating over `self` to `self.move_id.line_ids`.
- While this ensured all lines generated updated distribution ratios, it violated the compute logic: assigning values to records outside the current compute batch (`self`).
- By executing `line.discount_allocation_dirty = True` on external sibling lines, the method forced the ORM to trigger out-of-band `write()` calls. These writes re-triggered dependency checks (`_field_will_change`), which invoked the compute method again, leading to a recursive loop.

**Fix:**
1. Revert the assignment iteration back to `for line in self:`.
2. To preserve the intention of the previous commit (ensuring all lines recompute their shared distribution pool when one line changes), modify the method's `@api.depends` to be `move_id.line_ids.discount` and `move_id.line_ids.analytic_distribution`.

By declaring these relational dependencies, modifying a single line now batches all sibling lines into `self` from the start. This allows the lines to synchronize properly without triggering new ORM writes, eliminating the recursion.

opw-6451854

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#282050

### Issue before this commit:
When creating a fixed-amount down payment on a sale order containing a fixed tax alongside percentage taxes, the invoiced down payment amount did not match the amount configured by the user.

### Steps to reproduce the issue:
1. Download Sales
2. Create a new tax with Tax Computation as Fixed, amount 8$ and a new tax group name
3. Create a sale order, set 1000$ as price, insert 15% tax and the new tax, confirm it
4. Click 'Create invoice' and create a downpayment with fixed amount of 500$
5. See that the amount of the downpayment are incorrect. In particular the untaxed amount is 431.78$ instead of 434.78$ and the tax amount is 68.22 instead of 65.22$

### Cause of the issue:
Fixed taxes are not proratable (their amount doesn't scale with price), so the down payment line generation explicitly excludes them when building each down payment line. However, the ratio used to prorate the down payment was computed as self.fixed_amount / order.amount_total, where order.amount_total still included the fixed tax amount. This mismatch meant the fixed tax contributed to the denominator of the ratio but was never represented in the resulting down payment amount, causing the invoiced total to fall short of the requested fixed_amount by a margin proportional to the fixed tax.
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/baf2a1ee9d7df408aab8f3b5268a00d1161f9232/addons/sale/wizard/sale_make_invoice_advance.py#L233-L304

### Reason to introduce the fix:
The values inside the downpayement need to match with the ones inserted by the user and of the initial sale order.

opw-6410745

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