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

**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:

- 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

## 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. 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#282481
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277802

Steps to produce:
---
- Install the Sales and Inventory modules.
- Enable Allow Spontaneous Returns in Settings.
- Create a product and a sales order for it, then confirm the order.
- Open the delivery from the smart button and validate it.
- Preview the sales order, click return, increase the quantity, select a
  return reason, and download the return label.
- Open the sales order chatter.

Issue:
---
The chatter message posted after downloading the return label displays HTML tags as plain text instead of rendering line breaks.

Cause:
---
In [commit], `_build_return_log_message()`[1] builds the message as a plain str, concatenating literal HTML tags (`<br/>`) with dynamic content (product names, picking names, and the return reason).

The [caller] then posts the message using `Markup("%s") % return_message`. Since return_message is a plain str
rather than a Markup object, MarkupSafe treats it as untrusted input and escapes the entire string during interpolation, causing the HTML tags to be displayed literally.

Solution:
---
Build the message as a Markup object directly in `_build_return_log_message()`, using `Markup("<literal template>") % value` for each fragment. This ensures that the HTML structure is trusted while all dynamic values (product names,
picking names, and the return reason) are safely escaped by MarkupSafe during interpolation.

The method now returns a Markup object, allowing the caller to post it directly without wrapping it again in `Markup("%s") % return_message`, which would otherwise escape the already-safe HTML.

[commit]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/5f490ffc36a1156b927f2cf4f9b0aa00a83394d5
[1]https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/6521b207713c641172b13ac929aeeb1c20f09de8/addons/sale_stock/controllers/return_order.py#L130-L154
[caller]https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/6521b207713c641172b13ac929aeeb1c20f09de8/addons/sale_stock/controllers/return_order.py#L119-L120

Before:
---
<img width="645" height="101" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/54782171-ee64-4601-bfd9-e62621ab705f" />

After:
---
<img width="576" height="161" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/6b1ae04f-b35b-4aae-aa6d-88b7337a0100" />

opw-6367175

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