## 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

Steps:
- Install sale_management
- Make sure you have 100 quotations with 1 activity each
- Open activity view
- Default pager displays `1-100/100`
- Activity count display `To-do 80`

ActivityController uses `useModel` which passes the raw `component.props` to
`model.load()`, including the limit from `ir.actions.act_window` (default 80).
This value ended up in `fetchActivityData` via `params.limit || this.initialLimit`,
overriding `ActivityModel.DEFAULT_LIMIT` (100).

The records list was not affected because `RelationalModel._getNextConfig` never
reads `params.limit` (limit is not a `SEARCH_KEY`), so it always loaded 100
records correctly. But `fetchActivityData` used 80, causing a mismatch between
the records shown and the activity counts in the column headers.

```js
export const SEARCH_KEYS = ["comparison", "context", "domain", "groupBy", "orderBy"];
```

The fix strips `params.limit` in `ActivityModel.load()` before passing params to
`fetchActivityData`, so it falls back to `this.initialLimit (100)`. The pager
`onUpdate` handler calls `fetchActivityData` directly with its own `params.limit`
and is not affected.

However, `ActivityController` never forwards `limit` to the model. This
is why we always have `ActivityModel.DEFAULT_LIMIT (100)` without taking
into account actions's limit. To fix this we have to add the limit via
`this.props.limit`, as `ListController`.

`useModelWithSampleData` already had the correct behavior by calling
`model.load(getSearchParams(props))` which filters out non-search params like
limit. In 19.0 useModel was updated to do the same, so the issue does not
exist there.
Link to 19.0 fix: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/211697

opw-6281125

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#281227
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#273929

When searching on the Website site, using the main search on the navbar, it opens a list view with the results (`website.list_hybrid`) which raises the warning on the logs (2 times):
"Unknown directives or unused attributes: {'t-key'} in website.list_hybrid"

![Task 79454 - Issue 434 - Image of Warnings](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/f5a3100b-c617-4c38-a8b5-f42427a4317c)

This happens after the attribute `t-key` was added to the template [\[1\]] because the template is only used in QWeb. The validation for them doesn't include the `t-key` [\[2\]] as one of the "iter_directives" nor has a `_compile_directive_*` method to check and remove it from the validation as it's done with the `t-as` and `t-foreach`.

This also causes the raise of the warnings on tours that use the tour method `searchProduct` (of the module `website_sale`) because it uses the first input with the name of search and happens to be the search on the navbar.

![Task 79454 - Issue 434 - Search Input](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/923f5d63-5cfb-4c0b-a563-0eabc04882bb)

[\[1\]]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/7b1d82aa
[\[2\]]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f52cfb09/odoo/addons/base/models/ir_qweb.py#L1400

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#179017

Currently, with images enabled for quotation reports and if the product name is long enough, it overflows through the column border a bit before breaking to the next line.

This seems to be caused by some incompatibility between wkhtmltopdf and d-flex, adding `col` to the product name container forces it to respect column boundaries.

This commit also adds `text-break` as having a long uninterupded string in the description would end up stretching the column and making the next ones disapear.

<img width="811" height="266" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/90043c88-d03f-4324-9935-e669f6a256ab" />

<img width="964" height="431" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/2b8e8a6c-6fd5-4813-8160-d94bbb5490d1" />


### Steps to reproduce:
- Enable Display Product Images in the setting
- Create a product with an image
- Create a quotation with said product and add a description that is long enough to break to the next line
- Print said quotation
- You will notice that before the line breaks it will overflow to the next column 
(you might need to tweak the description a bit by removing or adding a few lines)


opw-6367076

Steps to reproduce:
1. Install `l10n_pe`
2. Create and set the current company to the Peru company
3. In mobile  view, try to create a contact
4. Fill in the identification number type to RUC

Issue:
- The field of VAT is collapsed and not visible

Cause:
- The VAT div `vat_div` is displayed as a flex row (`o_row d-flex`) so the 'add identifier' button sits on the same line as the VAT field. 
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/7d2d41fdef3446ca118290c1b31287887c0794db/addons/account/views/partner_view.xml#L169-L171
Localizations based on `l10n_latam_base` also put an identification type field (e.g. RUC, DNI) in that same row, before the VAT field. 
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/7d2d41fdef3446ca118290c1b31287887c0794db/addons/l10n_latam_base/views/res_partner_view.xml#L14-L21
That identification type field carried the `oe_inline` class, which matched an unrelated, pre-existing mobile-only rule forcing any inline many2one to `width: 100% !important`. 
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/7d2d41fdef3446ca118290c1b31287887c0794db/addons/web/static/src/views/form/form_controller.scss#L999-L1001
Inside the flex row this left no space for its sibling, collapsing the VAT value input.

<table>
  <tr>
    <th width="50%">Before</th>
    <th width="50%">After</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td width="50%">
      <img src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/12b1774f-2c60-4c89-a348-ccf514528552" width="100%">
    </td>
    <td width="50%">
      <img src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/3f1571f1-8e88-41d3-89bb-b9e2ce1e85fc" width="100%">
    </td>
  </tr>
</table>


Solution:
- Drop the `oe_inline` class from the identification type field in `l10n_latam_base`'s partner view.

opw-6375655