Currently, the Luxembourg Balance Sheet incorrectly maps accounts
`502000` and `503000` under the `III. Investments` section.

**Steps to reproduce:**
- Install the `l10n_lu_reports` module and switch to the `LU Company`.
- Navigate to Accounting > Accounting > Journal Entries and create and
  post two journal entries:
  - One with account `502000 Own shares or own corporate units`.
  - Another with account `503000 Shares in undertakings with which...`.
- Navigate to Reporting > Balance Sheet and check the `III. Investments` section.

**Observation:**
- `502000 (Own shares...)` is wrongly added under `3. Other investments`.
- `503000 (Shares in undertakings...)` is wrongly added under `2. Own shares`.

In the generated XML report:
- `502000 (Own shares...)` balance is added inside `<NumericField id="195">`.
- `503000 (Shares in undertakings...)` balance is added inside 
   `<NumericField id="209">`.

**Expected behavior:**
According to the Luxembourg documentation mapping tables [1],
- Account `502000 (Own shares...)` should be mapped to `<NumericField id="209">`.
- Account `503000 (Shares in undertakings...)` should be mapped 
  to `<NumericField id="195">`.

**Root Cause:**
At [2], the `account_codes_formula` values are incorrectly assigned:
account code `503` is mapped under `2. Own shares`, while account code
`502` is mapped under `3. Other investments`. This reverses the expected
mapping of the two accounts in the Balance Sheet report.

[1]:
https://ecdf.b2g.etat.lu/ecdf/pcnMappingTables

[2]:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/29c186827f0171292f1243e0deb8fe040c027a89/l10n_lu_reports/data/account_financial_html_report_bs.xml#L335-L348

opw-6275340

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#128386

### Problem

`label` on `account.reconcile.model.line` is a **translatable** field, but its value is
written onto the journal item created when the model is applied (`account.move.line.name`).

That means the label is read in the language of whoever applies the model:

- a user working in another language writes the translated value;
- the auto-reconciliation cron writes the **source** value, since it runs as OdooBot.

So the very same reconcile model ends up writing two different labels on the journal items,
depending on who applied it.

### How it shows up

It becomes visible when a reconcile model is created by **duplicating** an existing one and
the label is then edited while working in a non-source language. The translation holds the
new text, while the source value silently keeps the label of the original model — and the
source value is exactly the one the cron writes. The result is a set of journal items where
some carry the intended label and some carry the label of an unrelated model.

### Fix

The journal item belongs to the company, so the label is read in the **company** language
via a small `_get_aml_label()` helper, instead of the language of the current environment.
It falls back to the current behaviour when the company has no language set.

`_prepare_aml_vals()` is the only place in 18.0 that reads `self.label` for the journal item.

### Test

Adds `TestBankRecWidget.test_auto_reconcile_model_label_uses_company_lang`: a reconcile model
whose line label is translated in the company language, applied by the auto-reconciliation
cron running in the source language, and asserts the journal item carries the company-language
label.

```
odoo -d <db> -u account_accountant --test-enable --stop-after-init \
  --test-tags /account_accountant:TestBankRecWidget.test_auto_reconcile_model_label_uses_company_lang
```

Without the fix the test fails with `[{'name': 'Frais bancaires'}] != [{'name': 'Bank fees'}]`;
with the fix it passes. The full `account_accountant` suite was also run on a clean 18.0
database: 203 tests, 0 failed, 0 errors.

_get_invoice_counterpart_amls_for_early_payment_discount_per_payment_term_line
only split the early payment discount amount per invoice line (and thus
preserved each line's own analytic distribution) when the payment term's
early_pay_discount_computation was "included".
For "mixed" and "excluded", it instead built a single counterpart line,
discarding the analytic distribution of the invoice lines.

Compute the per-invoice-line base amounts (and the corresponding price_unit
for "mixed") for all three computations, keeping only the tax
calculation restricted to "included". This way "mixed" and "excluded" discount
entries now keep the analytic distribution of the invoice line they come
from, while behavior for "included" is unchanged.

Steps:

- Create 3 payment terms with EPD, each one with a different
  `early_pay_discount_computation` setting
- For each payment terms, create one invoice with two lines, only one
  having an analytic distribution
- Confirm and pay the 3 invoices (early payment, discount applied)

Issue:

For 'mixed' and 'excluded', the discount line is the sum of the discount
from the 2 invoice lines, and the analytic distribution is lost.

opw-6380278

**Steps to reproduce:**
* Install the **l10n_mx** localization.
* Enable **USD** and fetch the latest currency exchange rate from the settings.
* Configure **Quadrum** as the **PAC** in the settings.
* Create and sign a USD invoice with **16% IVA** (e.g. 4,500 USD + 720 USD tax = 5,220 USD total).
* Send the invoice to **CFDI**.
* Register a **partial MXN payment** that does not convert to a round USD amount (e.g. 30,000 MXN = 1,762.45 USD).
* Send the payment complement to the PAC by clicking **Update Payments** on the invoice.

**Observed behavior:**
The PAC rejects the CFDI with error **CRP20268**:
> El campo BaseP que corresponde a Traslado, no es igual a la suma de
> los importes de las bases registrados en los documentos relacionados
> donde el impuesto del documento relacionado sea igual al campo
> ImpuestoP de este elemento y la TasaOCuotaDR del documento
> relacionado sea igual al campo TasaOCuotaP de este elemento.

**Cause:**
* The SAT validator enforces a strict arithmetic relationship between three fields that are printed in the payment complement XML:
```
  BaseP == round(BaseDR / EquivalenciaDR, 6)
```
* When `percentage_paid` is a non-terminating decimal (which happens for any partial MXN payment against a USD invoice), the internal `raw_base` float carries more precision than the 6-decimal-place `BaseDR` that is actually written to the XML:
```
  percentage_paid = 1762.45 / 5220 = 0.33763409961685825...
  raw_base        = 4500 × 0.33763... = 1519.353448275862...
  BaseDR (XML)    = float_round(raw_base, 6) = 1519.353448
```
* The old code then used `raw_base` (the unrounded internal value) as the dividend when computing BaseP:
```
  BaseP (old) = float_round(1519.353448275862... / 0.0587483333, 6)
              = 25862.068980   ← written to <TrasladoP BaseP="...">
```
* The PAC performs the same division using only what it can read from the XML. The already-rounded BaseDR:
```
  BaseP (PAC) = round(1519.353448 / 0.0587483333, 6)
              = 25862.068975
```
* The 6th-decimal mismatch (25862.068980 ≠ 25862.068975) triggers CRP20268 and the document is rejected.

* The same issue occurs with a full MXN payment on a different date than the invoice when multiple invoice lines cause the rounded aggregate to diverge from the sum of per-line raw values.

**Fix:**
In `_l10n_mx_edi_add_payment_cfdi_values` (`account_move.py`), the block that builds the BaseP aggregation list was changed from iterating over raw per-`base_line` amounts to building a single synthetic entry per invoice using the already-rounded document-level `BaseDR` values (`tax_details['base']`) as the dividend:

  - Before : wrong: raw_base ≠ BaseDR printed in the XML
  'raw_base': tax_details['raw_base'] / inv_rate

  - After : correct: 'base' == BaseDR, the exact value in the XML
  'raw_base': tax_details['base'] / inv_rate

This guarantees that Odoo and the PAC divide the identical value, producing the identical 6-decimal result.

The `base_line_cfdi_values_mx_curr_list` path (used only for the `Totales` summary fields rounded to 2 dp) is left unchanged because the CRP20268 rule does not apply to that block.

opw-6468077

### Contains the following commits:

https://github.com/odoo/o-spreadsheet/commit/a952c0c36e [REL] 18.0.81 [Task: 0](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/2328/tasks/0)
https://github.com/odoo/o-spreadsheet/commit/7383e9aa95 [FIX] svg: avoid rjsmin issue caused by nested template literals [Task: 6317134](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/2328/tasks/6317134)
https://github.com/odoo/o-spreadsheet/commit/4ee08d4dbf [FIX] viewport: scroll to the last cell [Task: 6103620](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/2328/tasks/6103620)
https://github.com/odoo/o-spreadsheet/commit/cbed7348cc [FIX] pivot: unbounded ranges in the pivot side panel [Task: 6478220](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/2328/tasks/6478220)
https://github.com/odoo/o-spreadsheet/commit/6763af609c [FIX] evaluation: wrong dependencies invalidation with spread formulas [Task: 5103328](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/2328/tasks/5103328)

Co-authored-by: Florian Damhaut (flda) <flda@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Anthony Hendrickx (anhe) <anhe@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Alexis Lacroix (laa) <laa@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Lucas Lefèvre (lul) <lul@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Adrien Minne (adrm) <adrm@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Ronak Mukeshbhai Bharadiya (rmbh) <rmbh@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Dhrutik Patel (dhrp) <dhrp@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Rémi Rahir (rar) <rar@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Pierre Rousseau (pro) <pro@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Vincent Schippefilt (vsc) <vsc@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Marceline Thomas (matho) <matho@odoo.com>