Friday, September 11, 2026
11 changes · 18.0
Enhancements to existing features
This update aligns Mexican electronic invoicing payment calculations with SAT requirements, especially around rounding in payment documents. It helps reduce rejected invoices or compliance issues when issuing payment complements in Mexico.
Luxembourg payroll settings have been updated with the 2026 contribution, employer, general, and tax credit parameters. This helps payroll teams calculate employee pay and related obligations using the latest expected rules for the new year.
Original PR description
Update Luxembourg payroll rule parameters for 2026. Task-6481735
French partner records now get a more accurate electronic invoicing identifier by checking official directory and Peppol information before falling back to the SIRET-based default. When several possible identifiers are found, users are prompted to choose the correct one, helping avoid incorrect invoice routing.
Original PR description
for existing french partners that dont have their EAS set to the FRCTC, a check will be made to see if they are on the annuaire using the IAP annuaire lines, if one line exists, the identifier is set to that, if more than one line exists, there is no way for us to know which one belongs to that partner, so we prompt the user to go to the partner's settings and choose the correct identifier, if they are not on the annuaire but on peppol, we set the EAS and identiifer to the correct correspoding value found on peppol, if all cases fail, we default to the FRCTC EAS and their SIRET as the identifier. task-id-6327357
Resolved issues and error corrections
Mexican payment complements now use the correct number of decimal places for tax amounts based on the payment currency. This prevents valid payments from being rejected by the PAC/SAT validation, especially when invoices and payments use different currencies.
Original PR description
The 'ImpuestosP' node of the payment complement (Pagos 2.0) is reported with 6 decimals while the SAT expects the amounts to be expressed with the number of decimals supported by the currency of the…
The 'ImpuestosP' node of the payment complement (Pagos 2.0) is reported with 6 decimals while the SAT expects the amounts to be expressed with the number of decimals supported by the currency of the payment ('MonedaP'), as published in the 'c_Moneda' catalog, for example 2 decimals for MXN.
Steps to reproduce:
- Have an MX Company setup with Quadrum as PAC.
- Create and sign a customer invoice in MXN with a 16% IVA tax.
- Register a full payment and send the payment complement to the PAC.
Issue:
Payment will be rejected
```
Code : CRPER654
Message : El importe del campo BaseP que corresponde a Traslado, no tiene la cantidad de decimales que soporta la moneda (MonedaP)
```
Analysis:
Quadrum recently aligned its validation on that rule and now rejects the document having fields with too much decimals and, currently, fields like BaseP, ImporteP are pinned to 6 decimals in the template.
Reporting them with the decimals of the payment currency is not enough when the payment settles a document expressed in another currency: those amounts are also compared with the ones of the related documents converted with 'EquivalenciaDR', and the PAC expects the values truncated or rounded
```
Code : CRP20274
Extra Info : Traslados: La sumatoria de ImporteDR es mayor al ImporteP 1.30.
Valores minimos permitidos: Truncado: 1.29 o redondeado: 1.3
```
opw-6561617Invoice imports now better handle small rounding differences when matching fixed taxes, especially on lines with quantities above one. This reduces failed or incorrect tax matching during import, helping accounting teams process supplier or customer invoices more reliably.
Original PR description
When importing an invoice with fixed taxes, if the line has a quantity of more than 1, sometimes, due to rounding errors, searching for the fixed tax fails to find it, as the values needed to exactly match, a new search method was added to give a margin of +/- 0.01 when searching for valid taxes. task-id-6307992
Website checkout now prevents on-site payment in situations where gift cards or eWallets are not supported. This avoids customers reaching unsupported payment flows and helps reduce checkout errors or support cases.
Original PR description
We don't want to support gift cards and eWallets in certain conditions opw-6483282
This fixes an issue where upgrading the Website Sale Collect app could turn the "Pay on Site" payment option back on after a merchant had disabled it. Merchants' payment settings and display preferences are now preserved during upgrades, helping prevent unpaid checkout orders from being accidentally accepted.
Original PR description
Steps to reproduce: =================== 1. Go to the payment providers and set "Pay on Site" to disabled. 2. Go to Apps, clear the filter, look up "website_sale_collect" and upgrade it. This also…
Steps to reproduce:
===================
1. Go to the payment providers and set "Pay on Site" to disabled.
2. Go to Apps, clear the filter, look up "website_sale_collect" and upgrade it. This also happens on its own, as upgrading any custom module that depends on it upgrades it too.
3. Go back to the payment providers.
=> "Pay on Site" is enabled again, and published as well from 19.0 on. Customers are offered it at checkout and place orders that are never paid, without the merchant ever enabling anything.
Root cause:
===========
`data/payment_provider_data.xml` is loaded in update mode because it carries no `noupdate`, and it hardcodes the state of the provider:
<field name="state">enabled</field>
So every upgrade of the module writes that value back over whatever the merchant configured. Every other provider ships its data with `noupdate="1"` and leaves the state alone, this module is the exception.
The file has been loaded this way since the module was added:
- [1] created the module with an updatable provider record.
Fix:
====
Load the file with `noupdate="1"`. The record is still created, enabled, when the module is installed, it is simply not written again on later upgrades. The flag is read from the file rather than from the `ir.model.data` row, so databases where the provider already exists are covered on their next upgrade, no data migration needed.
[1]: 087c48c4ed2e
opw-6528110
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-prProducts with multiple variants now remain available to add to cart when at least one variant has stock. This prevents shoppers from seeing a product as sold out simply because the first listed variant is unavailable.
Original PR description
Steps to reproduce: =================== 1. Create a storable product with two variants and untick "Continue selling when out-of-stock". 2. Leave the first variant at 0 in stock, put some stock on the…
Steps to reproduce: =================== 1. Create a storable product with two variants and untick "Continue selling when out-of-stock". 2. Leave the first variant at 0 in stock, put some stock on the second one. 3. try the "Add to Cart" option of the shop page. => The product has no add to cart button, as if it were sold out, while its second variant can be bought. Reordering the variants so that the one in stock comes first brings the button back. Root cause: =========== `product.template._is_sold_out()` delegates to `product_variant_id`, which is `product_variant_ids[:1]`, so a whole template is declared sold out on the sole basis of its first variant. `_website_show_quick_add()` then hides the button for the template, whatever the stock of the other variants. The helper has looked at that single variant since it was written: - [1] added it to hide the button of sold out products. Fix: ==== Consider the template sold out only when all of its variants are. The check stops at the first variant in stock, so a product that can be bought still costs a single stock lookup. [1]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/4ae197cc770cec2058e1f113209c4f93a4a0f4b2 opw-6520052 --- I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr
This fix prevents packaged items from being reassigned to the wrong package when multiple delivery steps are merged into one final shipment. Businesses using multi-step warehouse flows get more accurate package tracking and fewer shipping errors.
Original PR description
Steps to reproduce --- 1. Set the warehouse to deliver in 3 steps. 2. Create a delivery pick not tied to a procurement group (not from a sale order) with a consumable product, and validate it. 3. On…
Steps to reproduce --- 1. Set the warehouse to deliver in 3 steps. 2. Create a delivery pick not tied to a procurement group (not from a sale order) with a consumable product, and validate it. 3. On the pack transfer, put the goods in a package and validate. 4. Duplicate the pick, validate it, put its goods in a second package on the pack transfer, and validate. 5. Open the final delivery: both lines sit in the same package instead of one line per package. Issue --- The two picks share no procurement group, so their delivery moves merge onto a single move keyed by partner. Validating the second pack tops up that already partially reserved move: for a consumable, `_action_assign` builds its lines from `_get_available_move_lines`, which reports the availability of every upstream package without discounting what the move already reserved. https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/05af9e6877fd0f044bb46c983fe7300eb1db9307/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1907-L1909 The package already reserved on the first line is therefore offered again and reused, collapsing both lines onto one package. The reserved-product branch below already subtracts the move's own reservation before allocating; doing the same here leaves each package on its own line. opw-6498532 --- I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr
PINT electronic invoices are now generated through the newer UBL export instead of the older BIS 2.0 process. This helps prepare the accounting and Peppol flows for removal of the legacy BIS implementation while keeping invoice export behavior aligned with current standards.
Original PR description
Problem --------- Currently, PINT uses the old BIS2.0 export. Objective --------- Decouple the exports as an effort to remove the old BIS implementation. no-task --- I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr
Generating the Peruvian "Inventory and Balance" General Ledger report now completes successfully instead of causing a server error. The export keeps the required SUNAT file format while using a safer CSV generation method, reducing disruption for accounting users.
Original PR description
### Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses: This PR fixes a server crash in the Peruvian localization (l10n_pe_reports_lib) that occurs when generating the "Inventory and Balance" General…
### Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses: This PR fixes a server crash in the Peruvian localization (l10n_pe_reports_lib) that occurs when generating the "Inventory and Balance" General Ledger report. The crash is triggered by strict validation rules within Python's csv module, which rejects the custom line terminator used to fulfill the SUNAT PLE formatting requirements. ### Current behavior before PR: When a user attempts to generate and export the "Inventory and Balance" report, the server crashes with a ValueError: bad delimiter or lineterminator value. This happens because the csv.DictWriter is initialized with lineterminator='|\n' to ensure every row ends with a pipe. Python's underlying csv implementation rejects this, as it expects standard line endings (\r, \n, or \r\n) and throws an error if the delimiter character (|) is included in the terminator string. ### Desired behavior after PR is merged: The "Inventory and Balance" report generates successfully without server errors. The code now uses the standard lineterminator='\n' to satisfy Python's validation rules. To maintain the mandatory trailing pipe (|) at the end of each row required by SUNAT, a dummy empty column (['']) is appended to the field names with restval=''. This prompts the writer to naturally append the final pipe as a column delimiter before the newline, resulting in the exact |\n output format required, safely and reliably. opw-6509674 --- I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr