[14.0][ADD] document_page_archive_reason

[eantones]

Supersedes #920

Split from #920. Odoo task: nuobit15-prod #2633 - [Qualitat] CONOCIMIENTO 5 - Arxiu amb motiu i nota automàtica.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 98.43750% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 51.53%. Comparing base (e066126) to head (74db489).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...cument_page_archive_reason/models/document_page.py	92.85%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             14.0     #923      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   51.26%   51.53%   +0.27%     
==========================================
  Files        1180     1187       +7     
  Lines       20388    20516     +128     
  Branches     4298     4309      +11     
==========================================
+ Hits        10451    10573     +122     
- Misses       9683     9687       +4     
- Partials      254      256       +2     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[eantones]

Review published with the requested changes in the line comments. Main points to address before merge:

• keep the archive flow on the normal action_archive() path instead of writing active directly;
• add and maintain the internal current archive reason field;
• revalidate and sanitize the reason at confirm time, including escaping chatter HTML;
• keep unarchive aligned with standard Odoo behavior while clearing the stored reason only where needed;
• avoid exposing a generic context bypass for no-reason archiving;
• align tests with the natural wizard workflow;
• align wizard ACLs with users who can actually modify document pages;
• update the source README behavior description and regenerate derived artifacts after the code changes.

Please address the requested changes before merge.

[eantones]

@deeniiz I published the review as COMMENT because this split PR is under my account, so GitHub does not let me use the normal REQUEST_CHANGES flow here.

Please treat the review as request changes: address the line comments before merge, and ping me again once the PR is updated for re-review.

[deeniiz]

@eantones , can you please review it?