Friday, September 18, 2026
2 changes · saas-19.1
Resolved issues and error corrections
This change reverses a recent update that caused vendor bill screens to load much more slowly when checking for duplicate documents. Duplicate receipt detection is removed from this stable version to restore normal Accounting performance, while a longer-term solution will be handled separately.
Original PR description
This reverts commit 391278237dc4fdbf48039bb269f1377d83bbc54d.
It introduced a performance regression.
Go to Accounting > Vendors > Bill
On odoo.com:
| | Time | Query plan |
|--------|--------|--------|
| Before | ~600ms | https://explain.dalibo.com/plan/3ge1afa2aa632be9|
| Now | 44s | https://explain.dalibo.com/plan/99e847h8d1c38dfd |
The reason is the condition `.move_type in ('in_invoice', 'in_refund')` which was changed to include 'in_receipt':
`.move_type in ('in_invoice', 'in_refund', 'in_receipt')`
Because of that, the query can no longer use the partial index `_duplicate_bills_idx` because it doesn't include 'in_receipt'.
We are reverting the commit in stable. We keep it and adapt the index in master.
task-6577249
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#288748Fixed an issue where Argentinian electronic export invoices could send quantities with too few decimal places after upgrading, causing ARCA rejections. The change uses the correct unit precision setting and supports up to the allowed six decimals, helping affected businesses invoice successfully.
Original PR description
### Problem `l10n_ar_edi` reports WSFEX / WSBFE line quantities (`Pro_qty`) truncated to 2 decimals in 19.0, no matter what precision the database has configured. `_get_line_details()` reads the…
### Problem
`l10n_ar_edi` reports WSFEX / WSBFE line quantities (`Pro_qty`) truncated to 2 decimals in 19.0, no matter what precision the database has configured.
`_get_line_details()` reads the precision like this:
```python
uom_precision_digits = min(self.env['decimal.precision'].precision_get('Product Unit of Measure'), 2)
```
In 19.0 that `decimal.precision` record was renamed to **`Product Unit`** (`uom/data/uom_data.xml`, `decimal_product_uom`), so the lookup matches no record. `precision_get` does not raise in that case, it falls back to a default of 2 (`base/models/decimal_precision.py`: `return res[0] if res else 2`), so `min(2, 2) = 2`.
The rename was applied everywhere else — `account.move.line.quantity` already declares `digits='Product Unit'`. Only this lookup kept the old name.
### Impact
A quantity of `0.042` is sent as `0.04`. ARCA rejects the invoice with **error 1815** (item math inconsistency: `unit price x quantity - discount` no longer matches the item total), which blocks export invoicing completely.
It only shows up after upgrading to 19.0: on 18.0 the record still had the old name, so the lookup worked and the configured precision was used.
On our hosted fleet we identified **67 Argentinian databases** that use WSFEX or WSBFE and have a unit precision above 2. Eight of them already run 19.0 and are affected today; the rest will hit the same rejection as they upgrade.
### Fix
Use the current record name, and raise the cap to **6**, the maximum `Pro_qty` accepts according to the WSFEX developer manual ([V3.1.1](https://www.afip.gob.ar/ws/documentacion/manuales/WSFEX-Manualparaeldesarrollador_V3.1.1_ARCA.pdf), p. 15).
### Test plan
`l10n_ar_edi/tests/test_fex.py` adds `test_ar_edi_wsfex_pro_qty_decimal_precision`, covering three cases:
| `Product Unit` | quantity | expected `Pro_qty` |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | 0.042 | `0.042` |
| 2 | 0.042 | `0.04` |
| 8 | 0.1234567 | `0.123457` (capped at 6) |
It does not go through the ARCA mock: it calls `_get_rounded_base_and_tax_lines()` and `_get_line_details()` directly.
### Note
Supersedes #130582 by the same author, which carried the same one-line fix without a test. Please review this one instead.
### Left out on purpose
`price_precision_digits` in the same method caps the unit price at 3 digits, which does not come from the specification either. That lookup still uses a record name that exists (`Product Price`), so there is no regression, and we have no rejection reported because of it. Changing it would widen the scope of a fix that has a concrete incident behind it, so it is left untouched here.
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#131457