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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#125897

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#128120
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120709

## Previous Behavior Before this Commit
1. When key and non‑key events were merged to build the final suggestion timeline, key events always took priority over AFK events, even when the key event was not “always active.” This caused AFK events to be incorrectly overridden.
2. During event normalization, certain events were lost entirely, resulting in important events not being counted.
3. When merging two event timelines, zero‑duration gaps were treated as valid, preventing proper merging of surrounding events.
4. ActivityWatch sometimes produced empty gaps instead of AFK events, causing breaks to go unrecorded.

## New Expected Behavior After this Commit
1. Events now follow the updated priority system: 
a. Always‑active key events 
b. Always‑active non‑key events 
c. Non‑key AFK events 
d. Other key events 
e. Other non‑key events
2. Events are now shortened or split so that the latest event always has priority, while minimizing unnecessary event removal.
3. Zero‑duration gaps are skipped when merging event lists.
4. Any gap larger than 3 minutes, between the first and last event and containing no events is automatically filled with an AFK event.

## Additional Notes
Because point 4 introduces additional AFK events, several tests were updated to reflect the new behavior.

task-[6455412](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project/4105/tasks/6455412)

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#127811

1- The benefit fields related to the hr.version have a domain that limits them to the whitelisted fields used to copy values from a template, which does not always include benefit fields. The advantage of the whitelist is that it factored in for the allowed countries, so instead of duplicating this logic to benefit fields and implementing it in every l10n, we can check which module the field comes from.

example:
The field [`company_car_total_depreciated_cost`](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/ce691cd6aaacfb86cd866698d2fcc3fe930912cb/l10n_be_hr_payroll_fleet/models/hr_version.py#L62) cannot be selected as `res_field_id` when it should be possible as we see in the [data](https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/ce691cd6aaacfb86cd866698d2fcc3fe930912cb/l10n_be_hr_contract_salary/data/hr_contract_salary_benefit_data.xml#L6), it is not whitelisted because we dont want to copy its value from a template.

2- Another fix is the inverse of the public field, there's a traceback because the selection field is always converted to a string and cannot be used to browse as is.
```py
  File "/data/build/enterprise/hr_contract_salary/models/hr_contract_salary_benefit.py", line 238, in _inverse_res_field_public
    record.res_field_id = self.sudo().env['ir.model.fields'].browse(record.res_field_public)
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/data/build/odoo/odoo/orm/fields.py", line 1890, in __set__
    write_value = self.convert_to_write(value, records)
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/data/build/odoo/odoo/orm/fields_relational.py", line 387, in convert_to_write
    return value.id
           ^^^^^^^^
  File "/data/build/odoo/odoo/orm/fields_misc.py", line 115, in __get__
    raise ValueError("Expected singleton: %s" % record) from None
ValueError: Expected singleton: ir.model.fields('1', '7', '3', '8', '4')
```

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#128275
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#127743

The PstlAdr block written into pain.001 files never contains the
partner's state/province nor the second street line, even when they
are set on the record: _get_all_addr() now returns them, but
_get_PstlAdr() also needs to write them out. Some North American banks
reject wire transfers whose beneficiary address lacks the
state/province, so those payments fail regardless of how complete the
vendor record is.

Emit CtrySubDvsn when the address has a state, before Ctry as required
by the element order of the PostalAddress schema, and append street2
to the street address line.

Steps to reproduce:
- Install Accounting and enable a generic ISO 20022 payment method on
  a bank journal
- Create a vendor located in the US or Canada with a complete address,
  including the state and a second street line
- Register a vendor payment, add it to a batch and generate the
  pain.001 file
- The creditor PstlAdr has no state/province, and its street line only
  carries the first street field: the street2 part is dropped


Requires odoo/odoo#282518, which makes _get_all_addr() return the state and street2.

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#128021
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#127958

_get_all_addr() feeds the postal address block of generated pain.001
payment files, but does not return the partner's state nor the second
street line. The beneficiary state/province and street complement
(suite, unit, ...) therefore never appear in the generated file, even
when they are set on the partner, and there is no way to fix it from
the record. Some North American banks reject wire transfers whose
beneficiary address lacks the state/province, so those payments fail
regardless of how complete the vendor record is.

Return the state code and street2 alongside the other address
components, from the partner for the base implementation and from the
employee private address for the hr one, so the payment engine can
write them in the PstlAdr block.

Steps to reproduce:
- Install Accounting and enable a generic ISO 20022 payment method on
  a bank journal
- Create a vendor located in the US or Canada with a complete address,
  including the state and a second street line
- Register a vendor payment, add it to a batch and generate the
  pain.001 file
- The creditor PstlAdr has no state/province, and its street line only
  carries the first street field: the street2 part is dropped


Companion enterprise PR emitting the state in the generated file: odoo/enterprise#127958

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#282620
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#282518

### 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 changes 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).

Enterprise: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/pull/120709

opw-6285878
opw-6261738

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280803
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#269747

**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Install Sales and payment_authorize modules
2. Enable "Online Payment" in the settings and Configure the payment method to be Authorize.net
3. Create a sale order, confirm it and create the invoice
4. Pay the invoice with an eCheck (ACH) payment method through the Authorize.net provider
5. Wait for the payment to be settled by Authorize.net (_around 24 hours_)
6. Initiate a refund of the payment

**Issue:**
The refund fails with error `E00003: "The 'AnetApi/xml/v1/schema/AnetApiSchema.xsd:cardNumber' element is invalid - The value XX is invalid according to its datatype 'String' - The actual length is less than the MinLength value`

**Expected behavior:**
The refund should be processed successfully regardless of whether the original payment was made by credit card or eCheck (ACH)

**Why this happens:**
- The `refund()` method in `AuthorizeAPI` builds the refund request using a `creditCard` payment payload
- When the original transaction was an ACH/eCheck payment, the `creditCard` key is absent from the transaction details returned by Authorize.net
- The resulting request is rejected by Authorize.net because it does not satisfy the minimum length constraint for `cardNumber`

**Fix:**
- Detects whether the original payment used `creditCard` or `bankAccount`
from the transaction details and build the appropriate payload according
to Authorize.net API documentation: https://developer.authorize.net/api/reference/index.html#payment-transactions-credit-a-bank-account

opw-6359726

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#282810
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277742

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

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

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

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

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


opw-6407399

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#282904
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#281245

Steps to reproduce
------------------
1. Configure a product with a subcontracted BoM and a subcontractor.
2. Create a purchase order of 10 units for that product and confirm it.
3. Receive the 10 units.
4. On the receipt, use "Return for Exchange" on 3 units and validate both the return and the exchange receipt.

Issue
-----
After the exchange, the 3 units stay in the subcontracting location instead of reaching `WH/Stock`, and the received quantity on the purchase order line stays at 7 instead of 10.

`mrp_subcontracting` overrides `_prepare_move_default_values` to force the move `location_dest_id` to the subcontractor location for every `is_subcontract` move:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/d9c06a66356dd9d5a50821b8cde6194967353c18/addons/mrp_subcontracting/wizard/stock_picking_return.py#L20-L25
That is correct for the return, but the same override also runs for the exchange re-receipt, an `incoming` picking whose destination should be the stock location from `return_type.default_location_dest_id`:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/d9c06a66356dd9d5a50821b8cde6194967353c18/addons/stock/wizard/stock_picking_return.py#L137-L153

The exchange move then goes from the subcontracting location back to itself, so validating it nets zero and `WH/Stock` never receives the units. Skipping the override when `new_picking.picking_type_id.code` is `incoming` lets the exchange land in stock.

The received quantity must also count that receipt. `_should_count_for_quantity_received` only counts `supplier` or `transit` sources:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/d9c06a66356dd9d5a50821b8cde6194967353c18/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L330-L331 so the exchange, sourced from the internal subcontracting location,
is skipped while the return still subtracts its quantity. Counting subcontracting-sourced moves:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/d9c06a66356dd9d5a50821b8cde6194967353c18/addons/mrp_subcontracting/models/stock_move.py#L312-L314 restores `qty_received` to 10.

opw-6410978

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#282666
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#279431

**Issue**
The height is not correctly computed in the picking form when editing product description.

**Steps to reproduce**
- Create a delivery for a product
- Add a description to it
- Click on editing the description
 -> Observe that the description is partially hidden because the widget height is incorrectly computed

**Cause**
Since commit https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/e4f4171e1bc838840c0bd6111cd78f348b201ac2, `useProductAndLabelAutoresize` no longer assigns a height to the widget root.

The corresponding widget is `MoveProductLabelField`, which extends `ProductNameAndDescriptionField`: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/91b59f285248c120fe9e3e5f6b6f086ea7be2837/addons/stock/static/src/views/picking_form/stock_move_product_label.js#L5 It uses `useProductAndLabelAutoresize`:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/91b59f285248c120fe9e3e5f6b6f086ea7be2837/addons/product/static/src/product_name_and_description/product_name_and_description.js#L54-L56 
**Solution**
Explicitly add a div around the product display and description to still use the `Autoresize`

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280056
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#271564

Currently, an error occurs when user tries to end repair that has a service line and is linked to a sale order or invoice.

Steps to replicate:
- Install `repair` with demo.
- Create a new repair order with a customer and check `Under Warranty`.
- Click on the `Services` page and add a product.
- Click on `Quote` button.
- Return to the repair order through breadcrumbs.
- Click `Confirm Repair` > `Start Repair` > `End Repair`.

Error:
```
  File '/home/odoo/odoo19/community/addons/repair/models/repair_service_line.py', line 120, in _update_repair_sale_order_line
    self.price_unit = 0.0
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
AttributeError: 'repair.service.line' object has no attribute 'price_unit'
```

Cause:
- The error was introduced after a recent improvement [PR].
- The `repair.service.line` model does not contain a `price_unit` field, which causes the error.
- The `price_unit` field is present in the related Sale Order Line or Invoice Line.
    
Solution:
- The price of the linked Sale Order Line or Invoice Line is now set to zero when the product is under warranty.
    
[PR]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/260278/files#diff-1ff5f0c96411a07c366ef6410fc4580798593205b57d5740fbb4a56259341c98R102


sentry-7620551626
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr