* = din5008_account_followup, din5008_industry_fsm

**Steps to reproduce:**

* Install the **Germany - Accounting** (`l10n_de`) module (which pulls in `l10n_din5008`)
* Set the document layout to **DIN 5008** and generate any PDF report (invoice, quotation, purchase order, etc.).

**Observed behavior (date format):**

* All dates in the information block (Invoice Date, Due Date, Delivery Date, Order Date, etc.) are rendered in `yyyy-mm-dd` format instead of the expected `dd.MM.yyyy` format used in DE, AT, and CH.

**Cause (date format):**

* All `t-options="{'widget': 'date'}"` directives across the DIN 5008 template family rely on the active user's language locale for date formatting. If the user language is not `de_DE`, dates render in the locale's default format (e.g. `yyyy-mm-dd` for `en_US`).

**Fix (date format):**

* Add `'format': 'dd.MM.yyyy'` explicitly to all `t-options` date widgets across all DIN 5008 report templates (`l10n_din5008`, `l10n_din5008_sale`, `l10n_din5008_purchase`, `l10n_din5008_sale_subscription`, `l10n_din5008_repair`, `l10n_din5008_account_followup`, `l10n_din5008_industry_fsm`).
* This is correct for all three countries using DIN 5008 (DE, AT, CH), which all follow the `dd.MM.yyyy` convention.

opw-6392649

### Issue before this commit:
When generating a SEPA Credit Transfer batch using the German XML format (pain.001.001.03), the <LEI> tag is erroneously included in the exported file if an LEI is configured on the company. This invalidates the XML, causing banks to reject the file.

### Steps to reproduce the issue:
1. Download Accounting and l10n_de
2. Go to Settins > Vendor Payments > SEPA Credit Transfer / ISO20022 and set Name Identification as 529900T8BM49AURSDO55 and Issuer as LEIMAN
3. Go to companies and set 529900T8BM49AURSDO55 as LEI in the DE company
4. Go to Accounting dashboard and click the 3 dots of the bank group, go to Configuration and set the Account Number and be sure in the Outgoing Payments tab XML Format is German
5. Create a new German company from Contacts with:
	1. Country as Germany
	2. VAT
	3. Account Number in the Bank Accounts by adding one line:
		1. example Account Number: DE65100500007201811026
		2. example Bank: BNP Paribas
		3. activate the Send Money button
7. Then go to Vendor > Payments and create a new one with Payment Method as SEPA Credit Transfer for the German company created
8. Go back and select the new payment from the list and click create batch and print it
9. In the XML of pain.001.001.03.(DE) file, the LEI tag should not be included.

### Cause of the issue:
The XML generation logic does not filter out the <LEI> element for older schema versions like pain.001.001.03, which do not support this tag.

### Reason to introduce the fix:
To ensure strict schema compliance and prevent bank rejections. The <LEI> element is now properly omitted from pain.001.001.03 files and restricted only to newer formats (e.g., pain.001.001.09) where it is valid.

opw-6428150

Steps to Reproduce:

1. Confirm a Sales Order with one line -> creates delivery P1. Validate P1 with date_done = Day_A.
2. Create an invoice from the SO and post it -> invoice.delivery_date = Day_A.
3. Add a new line to the same SO -> creates delivery P2.
4. Validate P2 with date_done = Day_B, where Day_B is earlier than Day_A.

Issue:
The already-posted invoice's `delivery_date` silently changes from Day_A to Day_B after step 4, even though nobody edited the invoice. This only happens when a delivery validated after posting has an earlier `date_done` than what was already used.

Root Cause:
`account.move.delivery_date (sale_stock)` is computed in `_compute_delivery_date()`, which depends on `sale.order.effective_date.effective_date` is itself computed as the earliest `date_done` among all done, facing deliveries on the order. Neither compute method checks whether the invoice is posted, so validating P2 triggers a chain reaction: the delivery is saved -> the sale order recalculates -> the invoice recalculates -> delivery_date gets overwritten on an already-posted invoice.

`sale_stock` also marks `delivery_date` as protected, but this protection only works when the invoice itself is saved (write/create). Here, the change starts from saving the delivery (stock.picking), which never goes through the invoice's save method, so the protection never kicks in. `delivery_date` is also not on the list of fields Odoo normally blocks from editing after posting.

Fix:
`_compute_delivery_date()` now splits invoices into posted and non-posted before running. Non-posted invoices work exactly as before. Posted invoices are skipped from the sync and simply keep their current value instead of taking the newly calculated one. `sale.order.effective_date` itself is untouched only its effect on an already-posted invoice is blocked.

Result:
Once an invoice is posted, its `delivery_date` now stays fixed no matter what happens with later deliveries on the same sale order. `effective_date` keeps updating normally either way, confirming the fix only affects the invoice. Verified with both a script and a manual UI test.

opw-6409171

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280978

### Steps to reproduce

1. Go to `Accounting > Customers > Invoices` and create an invoice on a given journal, leaving it in draft. For the clearest case, leave it with no invoice line.
2. Go to `Accounting > Configuration > Journals`, open that journal and archive it.
3. `_check_auto_post_draft_entries` raises: *"You can not archive a journal containing draft journal entries. To proceed: 1/ click on the top-right button 'Journal Entries' from this journal form 2/ then filter on 'Draft' entries 3/ select them all and post or delete them through the action menu"*.
4. Follow those steps: click the `Journal Entries` smart button on the journal form.

### Current behaviour

The list comes up empty, so the user concludes the error message is wrong, while the draft entries do exist.

The instructions cannot be followed:

- The smart button opens `action_account_moves_all_a`, which is named **"Journal Items"** and targets **`account.move.line`**, not `account.move`. The label of the button and the name of the action it opens do not match.
- That action defaults to `search_default_posted: 1`, so no draft record is listed.
- Draft entries with **no line at all** — commonly created through the incoming mail alias of a journal — have no `account.move.line`, so they stay invisible in that view even after switching the filter.
- The action menu of a move line list offers no way to post or delete the entries, and the action sets `create: 0`.
- The filter is labelled **"Unposted"**, not "Draft".

The offending entries are only reachable through `Accounting > Accounting > Journal Entries`, filtering by journal and by "Unposted".

### Expected behaviour

The error should point to a view where the records blocking the archiving are actually listed and actionable.

### This PR

Message only — the validation itself is unchanged. It now points to `Accounting > Accounting > Journal Entries` and uses the real filter name, "Unposted".

Not addressed here, since it is a UI change rather than a message fix: the root cause is the `Journal Entries` label on a button that opens the `Journal Items` action (`account_journal_views.xml`). Renaming the button to match its action would make the mismatch go away at the source. Happy to add it here if you prefer.

Targeted at 18.0 because that is where the misleading message is being hit in practice; it is identical on 19.0 and master. If a translatable string change does not qualify for the stable series, tell me and I will retarget to master.

> Reopening of https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/282286, which GitHub closed automatically after a bad force-push on my side (the branch was pushed from a shallow clone and lost its parent commit). The branch history is fixed and the PR could not be reopened, hence this one. The review discussion is in the previous PR.

### Steps to reproduce

1. Go to `Accounting > Customers > Invoices` and create an invoice on a given journal, leaving it in draft. For the clearest case, leave it with no invoice line.
2. Go to `Accounting > Configuration > Journals`, open that journal and archive it.
3. `_check_auto_post_draft_entries` raises: *"You can not archive a journal containing draft journal entries. To proceed: 1/ click on the top-right button 'Journal Entries' from this journal form 2/ then filter on 'Draft' entries 3/ select them all and post or delete them through the action menu"*.
4. Follow those steps: click the `Journal Entries` smart button on the journal form.

### Current behaviour

The list comes up empty, so the user concludes the error message is wrong, while the draft entries do exist.

The instructions cannot be followed:

- The smart button opens `action_account_moves_all_a`, which is named **"Journal Items"** and targets **`account.move.line`**, not `account.move`. The label of the button and the name of the action it opens do not match.
- That action defaults to `search_default_posted: 1`, so no draft record is listed.
- Draft entries with **no line at all** — commonly created through the incoming mail alias of a journal — have no `account.move.line`, so they stay invisible in that view even after switching the filter.
- The action menu of a move line list offers no way to post or delete the entries, and the action sets `create: 0`.
- The filter is labelled **"Unposted"**, not "Draft".

The offending entries are only reachable through `Accounting > Accounting > Journal Entries`, filtering by journal and by "Unposted".

### Expected behaviour

The error should point to a view where the records blocking the archiving are actually listed and actionable.

### This PR

Two changes, the validation itself is unchanged:

- The error message now points to `Accounting > Accounting > Journal Entries` and uses the real filter name, "Unposted".
- The smart button of the journal form is renamed to **"Journal Items"**, so its label matches the action it opens and no longer suggests it lists journal entries. This was asked for in the review of the previous PR.

Targeted at 18.0 because that is where the misleading message is being hit in practice; it is identical on 19.0 and master. If a translatable string change does not qualify for the stable series, tell me and I will retarget to master.

* = de, din5008, din5008_purchase, din5008_repair, din5008_sale

**Steps to reproduce:**

* Install the **Germany - Accounting** (`l10n_de`) module (which pulls in `l10n_din5008`)
* Set the document layout to **DIN 5008** and generate any PDF report (invoice, quotation, purchase order, etc.).

**Observed behavior (date format):**

* All dates in the information block (Invoice Date, Due Date, Delivery Date, Order Date, etc.) are rendered in `yyyy-mm-dd` format instead of the expected `dd.MM.yyyy` format used in DE, AT, and CH.

**Observed behavior (commercial register):**

* The footer always shows `HRB-Nr.:` regardless of whether the company has a commercial register entry.
* The abbreviation `HRB-Nr.:` appears even for Austrian and Swiss companies, where the commercial register number is a German-specific concept.
* In the company form view, the field is labeled generically as "Company ID" instead of "Commercial Register Number" for German companies.

**Cause (date format):**

* All `t-options="{'widget': 'date'}"` directives across the DIN 5008 template family rely on the active user's language locale for date formatting. If the user language is not `de_DE`, dates render in the locale's default format (e.g. `yyyy-mm-dd` for `en_US`).

**Cause (commercial register):**

* The footer renders `company.company_registry` unconditionally with no country guard and no label.

**Fix (date format):**

* Add `'format': 'dd.MM.yyyy'` explicitly to all `t-options` date widgets across all DIN 5008 report templates (`l10n_din5008`, `l10n_din5008_sale`, `l10n_din5008_purchase`, `l10n_din5008_sale_subscription`, `l10n_din5008_repair`, `l10n_din5008_account_followup`, `l10n_din5008_industry_fsm`).
* This is correct for all three countries using DIN 5008 (DE, AT, CH), which all follow the `dd.MM.yyyy` convention.

**Fix (commercial register):**

* Remove the hardcoded `HRB-Nr.:` label from the footer and instead render `company.partner_id.company_registry_label` (which is country-aware).
* Update the duplicate contact warning message to use the country-aware label via `company.partner_id.company_registry_label`, backed by a new `_get_company_registry_labels` override in l10n_de that registers `Commercial Register Number` for `DE`.
* In the company form view (`l10n_de`), hide the generic "Company ID" field for German companies and show a relabeled instance with `string="Commercial Register Number"` instead.

opw-6392649

### Issue:
When multiple partners share the same email address, `_mail_find_partner_from_emails` may resolve to the wrong partner when the input is a formatted email like "`Name <email>`"

This affects use cases like email templates using `{{object.company_id.email_formatted}}` as sender, where the wrong company partner could be selected

### Cause:
The lookup in `done_partners` only matched on `email_normalized`, which cannot distinguish partners sharing the same email but with different names

The `email_formatted` field carries both name and email, allowing an exact match when the input is a formatted email

### Steps to reproduce:
- Install `account`
- Create an Email Template (Applies to: account.move, From: {{object.company_id.email_formatted}})
- Create a second company B with the same email as the default (e.g. info@yourcompany.com)
- In Settings (logged in as company B), set a Fiscal Position (e.g. US Taxable)
- Create an Invoice on company B
- In the chatter, click Send message, click the expand arrows button, use the three dots menu to select the template
- Send and check the Sender in the chatter

Before the fix, the sender resolves to the default company even though the invoice belongs to company B

opw-6260992

Steps to produce:
---
- Install the `Sales` module.
- In Settings, enable `Automatic Invoice`.
- Also enable the Demo payment provider.
- Create a sale order with a total of `800` and confirm it.
- Generate a payment link for `200` from the gear icon and pay it.
- Generate a second payment link for `300` and pay it.
- Generate a final payment link for the remaining `300` and pay it.

Issue:
---
- After the first payment (200), an `invoice of 200` is created. Correct.
- After the second payment (300), an` invoice of 500` is created instead of 300.
- After the third payment (300), an `invoice of 100` is created instead of 300.

Root cause:
---
- The down payment invoice uses `order.amount_paid`, the cumulative sum of all transactions on the order, instead of the amount of the latest payment. This causes invoices to be sized off the running total instead of the individual payment delta.

Fix:
---
- Compute the invoice amount as `order.amount_paid - order.amount_invoiced` (the unpaid) instead of passing the cumulative `amount_paid` directly.

opw-6324036
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

Steps to reproduce the bug:
- Log in as a user with only the "Inventory / User" access right and
Products/Create (product.group_product_manager) granted (write access
to product.product/product.template)

- Open a storable product's form view.
    - Observe the "Quantity On Hand" field is readonly, and the "On Hand"
    quants popup opened from it is read-only too.
- Go to the Inventory > Physical Inventory / Inventory Adjustments menu instead.
    - Observe the same user can freely edit the quantity and apply the inventory adjustment.

Problem:
A stock user could apply inventory adjustments from the Inventory
Adjustments menu, but could not perform the exact same action from
the product form, forcing an unnecessary detour.

Three places in `stock` still gated editing to `stock.group_stock_manager`,
even though `inventory_mode` is already granted to any `stock.group_stock_user`
by `stock.quant._set_view_context()`, and the underlying write is already
guarded correctly by `_is_inventory_mode()`:
- `stock.quant._get_quants_action()` only picks the editable tree view
(used by the "On Hand" quants popup) for managers:
  https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/19.0/addons/stock/models/stock_quant.py#L1328
- The product form's own "Quantity On Hand" field/link
(`product_views.xml`) is only made editable for managers, and forced
readonly for everyone else:
  https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/19.0/addons/stock/views/product_views.xml#L192-L196
- The `inventory_quantity_auto_apply` field itself (the one actually
rendered in the editable quants list, whether opened from the product
form or the Forecasted Report) is restricted to managers at the Python
field-definition level:
  https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/19.0/addons/stock/models/stock_quant.py#L100-L104

All three checks were left over from before commit
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/37d96f49ccc85fa651f092b6c32bab1af2c34f2d,
which gave `stock.group_stock_user` write access on `stock.quant`
(see `ir.model.access.csv`) and dropped the manager-only restriction on
`action_apply_inventory`. The ACL and the Inventory Adjustments flow
were updated at the time, but these three entry points were not, leaving
them stricter than the rest of the permission model.

opw-6439844

Currently, an error occurs when user tries to pay on a vendor bill and removes the currency.

Steps to replicate:
- Install `l10n_account_withholding_tax`and activate multiple currencies.
- Open Invoicing > Vendors > Bills and create a new bill and add a vendor and bill date.
- Add a product and tax `2% WTH`.
- From the Cog menu > Click Pay > Remove the Currency.

Error:
```
  File '/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.4/addons/l10n_account_withholding_tax/models/account_withholding_line.py', line 208, in _compute_original_amounts
    line.original_base_amount = line_curr.round(base_amount * rate)
  File '/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.4/odoo/addons/base/models/res_currency.py', line 264, in round
    self.ensure_one()
  File '/home/odoo/src/odoo/saas-19.4/odoo/orm/models.py', line 5342, in ensure_one
    raise ValueError('Expected singleton: %s' % self)
ValueError: Expected singleton: res.currency()
```

Cause:
- As the user removed currency, the `comodel_currency_id`is received as false.
- Later when we call `round()` on the empty res.currency recordset causes this error to occur.

Solution:
- Added the company currency as a fallback value when `currency_id` is removed by user, since `currency_id` is a required field user will need to select a currency when saving.

sentry-7616890592
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

Commit: 68343a56ef0e727c8ac0be4875bedd0fb7460d04 added the possibility of having a negative value for taxable amount in zatca xml to fix this warning:

[202] BR-O-08 : [BR-O-08]-In a VAT
breakdown (BG-23) where the VAT category code (BT-118) is ' Not subject to VAT' the VAT category taxable amount (BT-116) shall equal the sum of Invoice line net amounts (BT-131) minus the sum of Document level allowance amounts (BT-92) plus the sum of Document level charge amounts (BT-99) where the VAT category codes (BT-151, BT-95, BT-102) are 'Not subject to VAT'.

However you cannot have a negative value for this node as stipulated by:

BR-KSA-F-04 All the document amounts and quantities must be positive.
ubl:Invoice / ubl:Invoice / cac:AllowanceCharge / cbc:Amount / ubl:Invoice / cac:AllowanceCharge / cbc:BaseAmount / ubl:Invoice / cac:TaxTotal / cbc:TaxAmount
/ ubl:Invoice / cac:TaxTotal / cac:TaxSubtotal /
cbc:TaxableAmount

(source: https://zatca.gov.sa/ar/E-Invoicing/SystemsDevelopers/Documents/20220624_ZATCA_Electronic_Invoice_XML_Implementation_Standard_vF.pdf)

The reverted commit causes an error when sending an invoice with a 0% or a sale order with a down payment:
- Create a sale order with a 0%.
- Create a downpayment and process it by zatca
- Process the delivery on the SO and create the final invoice.
- The invoice will be rejected by zata with the error:

BR-KSA-80 If Pre-Paid amount (BT-113) is
provided then the Pre-Paid
amount (BT-113) must equal to
the sum total of the Prepayment
VAT category Taxable Amount
(KSA-31) and Prepayment VAT
Category Tax Amount (KSA-32)

opw-5072577

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:

Current behavior before PR:

Desired behavior after PR is merged:




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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#279945