Steps to reproduce:
- Create a DB and Install `Accounting` without demo data
- In Companies > Create New Company with `US` Localization
- Switch to US Company > Add `Avatax` Credentials
- Create a Product with `Avatax Category`
- Create a Invoice > In Other Info `Fiscal Position` - `Automatic Tax Mapping (AvaTax)` > `Compute Taxes`
- In Taxes check newly created tax does not have a account ID

Issue:
AvaTax fiscal position created from chart templates have empty `avatax_invoice_account_id` and `avatax_refund_account_id` fields on a fresh database without demo data.

Problem:
Both fields use [defaults] based on `company.account_sale_tax_id`. During initial CoA loading, `_load_data()` creates the AvaTax fiscal position before `_post_load_data()` sets `company.account_sale_tax_id`. The defaults therefore resolve to an empty recordset and no tax account is assigned. This issue does not occur in databases with demo data because the demo company is already loaded, so `company.account_sale_tax_id` is already set when the AvaTax fiscal position is created.

Solution:
Set the invoice and refund accounts explicitly in the AvaTax fiscal position template to ensure they are correctly assigned during CoA loading.

[defaults]: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/de17c107651394025e9a3d5cbed8d81bcfc2e76d/account_avatax/models/account_fiscal_position.py#L9-L13

opw-6347128

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#132005
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#126604

After a recent change, the smart button for Source POs uses the reference_ids on a stock.picking. This altered the logic to fetch all orders from any picking that has the same reference. However, `subcontracting_source_purchase_count` should specifically relate to the resupply of subcontractor picking to their subcontracted purchase order.

**Steps to Reproduce:**
1. Enable multi-step routes and subcontracting
2. Unarchive the MTO route
3. Create 4 products Finished Product, A, B, C, and set MTO on both A and B
4. Put 10 units of C in stock
5. Create a BoM for Finished Product using A and B as components
6. Create a subcontracted BoM for B using C as a component
7. Set the purchase vendor for product A as the vendor
8. Set the purchase vendor for product B as the subcontractor
9. Create and confirm a manufacturing order for Finished Product
10. Confirm the POs

The two POs are:
1. Purchase Product A from its vendor
2. Subcontract Product B from its subcontractor and use Product C as a component

**Current Functionality:**
- Product A's receipt has a **Source PO** smart button pointing to the subcontracting PO for Product B (BUG)
- Product B's receipt has a **Source PO** smart button pointing to its own PO (BUG)
- Product C's picking has a **Source PO** smart button pointing to its own PO

**New functionality:**
- Product A's receipt has no **Source PO** smart button
- Product B's receipt has no **Source PO** smart button
- Product C's receipt has a **Source PO** smart button pointing to its own PO

opw-6420168

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#278908

Since [1], the registry is loaded without a request context, so a module installation now goes through the fallback of `get_current_website` that reads the url stored on the current thread. That value is a full url, not the `domain:port` the method expects, so IDNA-encoding it splits it on the dots of the path rather than on those of a host name and raises `UnicodeError` as soon as one of the resulting parts reaches 64 characters.

The thread url is now reduced to its `domain:port` part.

Steps to reproduce:
- Start the server locally on a database with demo data, served on `http://localhost:8069`, with only `Website` installed
- Create a new website
- In the configurator, choose `I want an online store`
- Go through each step
- After the last step, a traceback appears while loading the accounting demo data: the configurator should apply without error

[1]: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/1ae80f9fb18c9c9e67fe0367b94f0d882c711570


Also reported here: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/issues/286432

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#288931

### Steps to reproduce

Set a credit limit of 1.000 on a customer, then:

1. Create a Sale Order for a product with Invoice Policy on **Delivered Quantities**, over that amount → the warning shows. Good.
2. Confirm it, and deliver nothing.
3. Create a second order for the same customer → the warning never shows, even though the customer is already over the limit.

### Solution

The ordered quantity is what the customer committed to, delivered or not. Using `qty_to_invoice` instead of `uom_qty_to_consider` or `qty_delivered`

Introducing invoice_status in sales domain for `_compute_credit_to_invoice`: `untaxed_amount_to_invoice` still follows the invoicing policy, while `amount_to_invoice` no longer does. On a confirmed order for a delivery-based product with nothing delivered:

```
    line.untaxed_amount_to_invoice = 0       # still gated by qty_delivered
    line.invoice_status            = 'no'
    order.amount_to_invoice        = 2000    # fixed by this PR
```

The domain filters on the first one, so the order is dropped from the search before its amount is ever read and `credit_to_invoice` stays at 0.`'no'` is the stored marker for a confirmed line that is not invoiceable yet, which is exactly what the first clause misses.

ticket: [6480211](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project/967/tasks/6480211)

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#288659
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#285578

There was a difference between the actual and expected NET.

**Causes**
- rules existed for both SOCSO Act 800 and EIS, but Act 800 seems to be the official name of the Employment Insurance System (source: https://www.perkeso.gov.my/images/dokumen/Rate_of_Contribution_ACT_800.pdf). Keep the ACT 800 one as its matches the expected amount.
- there was a double counting of the SOCSO employee contributions (4 and 800) , as `l10n_my_rule_socso_employee` (the sum of both) was added to the total deductions.

**Change**
Before: 3500/month wage results in a 3108 NET.
<img width="1181" height="533" alt="before" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/cdf4420f-e2cf-4dc7-9488-6bde3f1f9961" />
After: 3500/month wage results in a 3090.85 NET:
	- 6.90 SOCSO Act 800 Employee
	- 6.90 SOCSO Act 800 Employer
	- 17.25 SOCSO Act 4 Employee
	- 60.35 SOCSO Act 4 Employer Which seems consistent with online sources (https://payroll.my/)
<img width="1181" height="425" alt="after" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/7fb41186-dbb4-4d7a-ac9a-14fb56efc4bc" />

Other fix: while not affecting the calculation, 'SOCSO Employer Share' appeared as incorrect, the two rules SOCSO_800_EMPLR and SOCSO_4_EMPLR should have the same sign.

opw-5976362

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#131023
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#118138

**Issue**
Changing the `partner_id` of an outgoing rental transfer could reset its destination location to the partner customer location instead of the rental location.

**Steps to reproduce**
- Enable Rental Transfers from Rental Configuration.
- Create a Sales Order for a rental product.
- Open the related delivery transfer.
- Using Studio, make the Destination Location field visible. -> Current destination location is: Partner/Customer/Rental
- Change the delivery address -> The destination location become: Partner/Customer

**Cause**
Changing the delivery address (i.e: the partner_id) triggers `_compute_location_id`: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/85372b625a80ab50fe2d8a6bce49a890b2bf1665/addons/stock/models/stock_picking.py#L949-L950 
Since commit https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/8c90fc1fd336ee872fd67d8d72473e4f6c55b2e0, not only draft picking are recomputed. As a result, `location_dest_id` is set as `picking.partner_id.property_stock_customer` https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/85372b625a80ab50fe2d8a6bce49a890b2bf1665/addons/stock/models/stock_picking.py#L959-L961 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/85372b625a80ab50fe2d8a6bce49a890b2bf1665/addons/stock/models/stock_picking.py#L963 
Regardless whether we are in rental setup

opw-6237495

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#126158
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#123564

### Steps to Reproduce:
1) Install `website_helpdesk_slides_forum` module
2) On a Helpdesk team, link 2 (or more) forums under `Commnity Forums`.
3) Click on website smart button and then click `Ask the community` button.

### Error:
```
odoo.addons.base.models.ir_qweb.QWebException: Error while render the template
KeyError: '_forums'
Template: website_helpdesk_slides_forum.helpdesk_forums
```

### Root Cause:
https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/1bdd673c5fd19e335dc0948d2beed7a282e5e172/website_helpdesk_forum/controllers/website_forum.py#L18-L22

On clicking the "Ask the Community" button calls the `helpdesk_forums`
controller. A single forum redirects straight to it. Several forums get rendered
through `get_template_xml_id()`, with only `forums` in context.

`get_template_xml_id()` is overridden in `WebsiteSlidesForumHelpdesk`,
which points to :

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/1bdd673c5fd19e335dc0948d2beed7a282e5e172/website_helpdesk_slides_forum/views/helpdesk_templates.xml#L3-L5

a primary copy of the inner partial `forum_all_all_entries`. That
partial needs `_forums` (and, once extended by website_slides_forum,
courses_discussions too), both only ever set by the page template's
own t-call:

[Reference](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/23af2b443735c6d3a2f64e44f9ea5da45638b052/addons/website_forum/views/forum_forum_templates_forum_all.xml#L18-L19)

Since `helpdesk_forums` is rendered directly instead of going through
`website_forum.forum_all`, `_forums` is never set, hence
`KeyError` occurs.

The base `website_helpdesk_forum` module has the same root cause one
level up, surfacing as a different error:

https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/1bdd673c5fd19e335dc0948d2beed7a282e5e172/website_helpdesk_forum/controllers/website_forum.py#L24-L25

`website_helpdesk_forum.forum_all` does not exist anywhere in the
codebase. A team with multiple forums, without
`website_helpdesk_slides_forum` installed, hits
```
ValueError: View 'website_helpdesk_forum.forum_all' in website 1 not found
```
Instead of a listing page.

### Fix:
- Both `get_template_xml_id()` implementations now return the real,
  working `website_forum.forum_all` page template, which already sets
  `_forums/courses_discussions` through its own `t-call` and wraps the result in
  website.layout.

- `helpdesk_forums()`'s render values are now built through an overridable
  `_get_helpdesk_forums_render_values()` hook instead of a hardcoded dict,
  so subclasses can extend the context.

- `website_helpdesk_slides_forum` uses that hook to set
  `hide_forum_slides_link=True`, and adds one small non-primary view inheriting
  `website_slides_forum.forum_all_all_entries` that conditions the `/slides` promo
  link (not the "Course" badge, which doesn't navigate anywhere) on `not`
  `hide_forum_slides_link`. This targets the link element itself rather than a
  `t-call` site in `forum_all`, so it correctly applies whether `website_slides_forum`
  groups a given forum as "regular" or "course-linked".

**opw-6332175**

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#131734
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#124104

### Steps to reproduce:
- Create two employees: Employee A (Manager) and Employee B (Employee subordinate to A)
- Create a user for Employee A and grant Time Off approval rights, but no Payroll access
- Create a payslip for Employee B for the current month
- Validate and mark the payslip as Paid
- Log in as Employee B and submit a Time Off request for the current month
- Log in as Employee A and open Employee B's Time Off request to approve it
> AccessError: You do not have enough rights to access the field "payslip_state" on Time Off
(hr.leave). Please contact your system administrator.

### Cause of Issue:
When a leave overlaps with a validated payslip and no waiting payslip is found, the `hr_payroll` override of `_action_validate()` attempts to set the leave's `payslip_state` to `blocked`. However, the `payslip_state` field is restricted to users with Payroll access (`hr_payroll.group_hr_payroll_user`). Because the manager approving the leave only has Time Off approval rights, the write operation fails with an access rights error.

### Fix:
Use `sudo()` to bypass the AccessError, since it's the common approach in this module

opw-6501386

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#129880

The mobile summary element hides the address form on Android

Steps to reproduce:
1. Install eCommerce
2. On android (or using browserstack) and without being logged in, go to the eCommerce
3. Add any product to the cart and go to checkout
4. Click on "Checkout" to enter the address details
5. Open the keyboard by clicking inside the first input
6. The virtual keyboard opens, enter a name and click on "Next" in the virtual keyboard
7. Do this a couple of times: the cart summary element doesn't scroll and the input field is hidden behind it

Similar problem happens when you scroll a bit after clicking in the first input: the cart summary element displayed at the bottom is still visible (on top of the virtual keyboard) which hides part of the page and makes it difficult to navigate the page and fill in the details

Issue:
`sticky-bottom` keeps the element at the bottom of the screen

Solution:
Remove class `sticky-bottom` from `o_mobile_summary` when we click in one of the input

opw-6500503

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#287464

## [FIX] l10n_co_reports: fix UNION ALL crash with multiple column groups

### Issue:
Any comparison mode (Period, Analytic, etc.) in the Libro Diario raises an Odoo Server Error

### Cause:
Each sub-query in the `UNION ALL` had its own `ORDER BY` SQL only allows one global `ORDER BY` on a `UNION ALL`, or parentheses around each query — neither was the case

### Steps to reproduce:
- Install `l10n_co_reports` and `accountant`
- Enable Developer Mode in Settings
- Open the Libro Diario report and click the gear icon (top right)
- In the Options tab, enable Period Comparison
- Enable the Comparison for the Previous Period

Before the fix, an error is raised

------------------------------

## [FIX] l10n_co_reports: include partnerless entries in Libro Diario

### Issue:
Journal entries without a partner are excluded from the report but are legally required to appear

### Cause:
`_get_domain` called `super()` which adds `('partner_id', '!=', False)` to the domain, filtering out all partnerless entries
The SQL query also used a `JOIN` instead of `LEFT JOIN` on `res_partner`, excluding lines with no partner at the DB level

### Notes:
`NULL` values for `partner_name` or `line_label` caused the JS to hide the corresponding column headers
`header.js` matches columns to their header by `column_group_index`/`expression_label` and skips `None` values
Fixed by using `COALESCE` to return an empty string instead

### Steps to reproduce:
- Install `l10n_co_reports` and `accountant`
- Create a Journal Entry without a partner or label
- Open the Daily Journal Report

Before the fix, the entry doesn't appear
After the fix, check that PARTNER and LABEL headers are visible

opw-6430728

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#132066
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#129674

[FIX] payment_transaction: stop post-processing cron from retrying persisting errors and sending repeated API calls

Currently, when a transaction fails to process as part of the "Payment: Post-process transactions"
cron, the transaction is retried with the next cron run, 10 minutes later. When the blocking error
is a persisting one (such as for a UserError that cannot be resolved without manual intervention),
the cron will retry repeatedly. The cron may send API calls as part of the process, resulting in
hundreds of repeat API calls over the four days allotted for retrying. Additionally, we do not
have a mechanism to notify the user that this process is failing outside of the server logs - the
user does not know the record is failing, nor do they know why.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Configure Avatax in the company's tax settings.

2. Set up a transaction that will fail during post-processing.
Here is an example setup:
-Enable superuser
-Create new sale order draft for a user in company 1.
-Set the user to company 2
-Confirm the sale order and make a payment
-The payment should go through, creating a transaction
-Run the post-processing cron, which should fail while processing the transaction.
-Note the error in the server log, and note that the transaction's is_post_processed field stays "false"
-Note the Avatax logs record an API call.
-Run the post-processing cron again, noting the same log entry, is_post_processed = false, and another API call.

Solution:
This issue is only partially addressed in the current master branch: the four-day allotment is
reduced to one day. However, it does not resolve any other issues, mainly that of re-processing
records with persisting errors.

Similar crons with API components (such as for Amazon and Peppol) already have mechanisms in place
to prevent repeated retries for records with persisting errors. This should provide precedent for
the following solution:

1. Logic to block records with persisting errors from being automatically retried.
2. A helper function that produces a chatter message in the related record.
3. A helper field to track post-processing errors and support the new logic.

opw-6486459

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