Problem:
When the website_sale_renting module is uninstalled and you try to create a rental order with a product that has an optional rental product, the system crashes with a traceback. This happens because the rental start and end dates are passed to the product pricing calculations as plain text strings instead of proper date formats, which breaks the timezone math.

Solution:
This commit ensures that the rental start and end dates are converted into proper datetime formats before any duration or pricing calculations occur, preventing the error and allowing the products to be added to the rental order smoothly.

Steps to reproduce(runbot v18):
1. Install the Rental (sale_renting) and Website modules.
2. Uninstall the website_sale_renting module.
3. Create a rental product and configure another rental product as its optional product.
4. Open the Rental application and try to add the created product to a rental order.
5. A traceback is raised while calculating the rental price.

opw-6485776

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#130071
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#128668

When generating a payment complement, tax base and importe coming from the related invoice are prorated by the percentage actually paid, each rounded independently to the currency precision. The post-fix step that restores the SAT invariant uses a Tasa-only formula (`base = total / (1 + rate)`), so Cuota (fixed amount per unit) taxes keep mismatched values, ending up with
`ImporteDR != round(BaseDR * TasaOCuotaDR)`. This leads to CFDIs rejected by the PAC/SAT.

Steps to reproduce:
  - Create a customer invoice with a Cuota IEPS tax (e.g. 26.2569).
  - Register a partial payment whose amount is not an exact divisor of the invoice total (e.g. one third).
  - Send the payment CFDI: the resulting Cuota TrasladoDR has an ImporteDR that does not match BaseDR * TasaOCuotaDR, leading to a rejected CFDI.

This commit recomputes `importe` from the prorated `base` for Cuota taxes (bypassing the Tasa post-fix)

opw-6087564

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#130380
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#113395

Current behavior:
--
Sending a B2B invoice that deducts a down payment is rejected by ECPay with
"(item tax discrepancy exceeds 1 NT$)", so the invoice
cannot be issued at all. When it is accepted, the tax on the e-invoice can
still differ from the tax the invoice books.

Expected behavior:
--
The invoice is accepted, and the tax reported on the e-invoice is the one the
invoice booked.

Steps to reproduce:
--
- Set a company up in Taiwan (TWD) with the ECPay credentials filled in
- Create a sale order of 190,630 for a customer with a VAT number
- Invoice a 50% down payment through the down payment wizard, then a 30% one, and post both
- Invoice the remainder and post it
- Send the final invoice to ECPay

Cause of the issue:
--
_l10n_tw_edi_prepare_item_list rebuilt the tax from the raw amount of every
line and rounded that total once. Both steps also disagree with the invoice. 
Negative lines resulting from downpayments seem to be more strictly checked
on ECPay and taxes cannot be re-derived easily by ECPay's system.

There is a also a relevant but slightly different issue where the invoice amount is calculated
differently but the ECPay page will show a different value.

e.g. the invoice rounds each
computation key on its own: 50.00 - 16.50 = 33.50 rounds to 34 where the invoice books
50 - 17 = 33.

No issue was detected for purely positive lines (a transaction with
different products but no downpayment)

Fix:
--
Use the tax amount the line carries when it has one, and fall back to the raw
amount otherwise, so the payload reports what the invoice booked. Send the tax
of each line in the ItemTax field. Let ECPay derive its own per-item tax and checks
it against the declared total for purely positive lines, and recalculate them for negative
so the rounding difference between them is spread one unit at a time across the lines,
the way ECPay distributes it.

opw-6424237
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#281928

### Issue before this commit:
When generating a Nilvera e-invoice in a foreign currency (e.g., EUR), the amount written in words inside the <cbc:Note> tag contained a mix of languages. While the numbers were correctly translated to Turkish, the currency subunit label was fetched using the customer's language. This resulted in a partially translated string (like "... SIFIR CENTS") instead of the expected fully Turkish text (like "... SIFIR SENT").

### Steps to reproduce the issue:
1. Download Accounting and l10n_tr_nilvera_einvoice
2. Create an API KEY: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EUzvTBnSm9-VwIfBsX299MHGXIVys-uijnsJ1fpz7vI/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.e6i8a29lff5t
3. Go to a turkish client on the Accounting tab and click on 'Verify' for the Nilvera status
4. Go to currencies and activate EUR (be sure there is also the translation for currency subunit)
5. Go to invoices, create one for the Turkish customer you already verified setting the currency as EUR and send it with Nilvera
6. See that current output is <cbc:Note>YALNIZ : BEŞYÜZDÖRT EUR SIFIR CENTS</cbc:Note> (Turkish numbers with English subunit)
but the expected output is
<cbc:Note>YALNIZ : BEŞYÜZDÖRT EUR SIFIR SENT</cbc:Note> (Fully Turkish text)

### Cause of the issue:
The issue occurs because the currency_subunit_label field is not translated but fetched using the language of the customer in the invoice.

### Reason to introduce the fix:
To ensure that the amount in words inside the <cbc:Note> tag is completely formatted in Turkish, complying with Nilvera and local e-invoicing requirements, regardless of the customer language.

opw-6523794

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#287630

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

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#287820
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#284956

Steps to reproduce:
---
- Install the website_sale module with demo data.
- Go to /shop and switch the product layout to Chips.
- Exit the editor.
- On the home page, open the editor and add the Dynamic Products snippet.

Issue:
---
The Products snippet has collapsed card padding when the Chips layout is active.

Root cause:
---
- The Chips card layout defines `--_padding-base` using
`var(--o-wsale-products-grid-gap)` with no fallback value.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/4307f657c73a860c755e1499138a878268882f7a/addons/website_sale/static/src/scss/product_tile.scss#L632

- When the Products snippet renders outside /shop, the variable is
undefined, causing the `calc()` to resolve to a guaranteed-invalid
value which collapses the card padding. All other layouts are
unaffected because they either do not use `--o-wsale-products-grid-gap`
in their padding chain, or already provide a `16px` fallback at the
point of use.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/4307f657c73a860c755e1499138a878268882f7a/addons/website_sale/static/src/scss/product_tile.scss#L407-L410

Solution:
---
- 16px matches the default value of `shop_gap` on the website model,
ensuring correct padding whenever the variable is not explicitly set.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/4307f657c73a860c755e1499138a878268882f7a/addons/website_sale/models/website.py#L128
  
### Before:
<img width="1456" height="563" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/c28ab183-0af3-4a2a-858d-b85d9995eb07" />

### After:
<img width="1427" height="550" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/e0ba80ec-10ad-433f-bf9a-acbaffd56a76" />

opw-6511483
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#286185

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-6561617

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#131319
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#131267

A portal user cannot add an attachment when posting a review on a product page: submitting the review with a file attached fails with a generic "Not Found" error, while posting the exact same review without an attachment works fine.

Steps to reproduce:
-------------------
* Enable "Discussion and Rating" on a product page (Website > Customize)
* Log in as a portal user and open that product page
* Write a review, attach a file, then submit
> Observation:
"Not Found
The requested URL was not found on the server. If you entered the URL manually please check your spelling and try again."

Why the fix:
------------
`product.template._get_mail_message_access()` demotes a portal user's create access to 'write' whenever
`env['website'].is_view_active('website_sale.product_comment')` is False, since 'write' access is a deliberate way to block posting when the feature is toggled off for the website. `is_view_active` only picks the correct, website-specific view when `website_id` is present in `self.env.context`; that key is injected by the website frontend only for routes declared `website=True`.

`/mail/attachment/upload` is not `website=True` (attachments used to go through the dedicated, `website=True` `/portal/attachment/add` route, removed when portal's attachment uploader was unified with mail's), so `website_id` is missing from context on that route, `is_view_active` falls back to the generic, shipped-`active="False"` view, and always reports the feature as disabled - even when it is actually enabled for the current website. Create access is then wrongly demoted to 'write', which a portal user never has on `product.template`, so the thread lookup fails and the controller raises `NotFound()`.

Resolve the current website from the request itself (`env['website'].get_current_website()`) and inject its id into context before checking `is_view_active`, instead of relying on `website_id` already being in context. This makes the check accurate regardless of which route triggered it.

opw-6539184

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#287674
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#287345

Since the introduction of `read_grouping_sets` for Pivot views, opening the Pivot view from a saved favorite filter can crash.

### **Steps to reproduce:**
- Install Project.
- Open My Tasks.
- Save the current filter as a favorite.
- Switch to the Pivot view.

### **Error:**
```
ValueError: Cannot convert project.task.personal_stage_id to SQL
because it is not stored.
```

### **Root Cause:**
Since [commit](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/194413/changes/166a546ec52784c413f5b5d7d29af89d618d6519), Pivot views use `_read_grouping_sets` instead of
`_read_group`. `project.task` only remaps `personal_stage_type_id` to the stored `personal_stage_type_ids` in [_read_group](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5f6fb63d5d7585805642c702d096b2f882e73761/addons/project/models/project_task.py#L2169-L2179), so the remapping is bypassed for Pivot views. The ORM then attempts to group by the non-stored `personal_stage_type_id` relation, leading to the SQL conversion error.

### **Fix:**
Mirror the remapping logic in `_read_grouping_sets` so Pivot views use `personal_stage_type_ids` before the ORM generates the SQL query.

**opw-6306389**

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#272985