Fix Cloud#getUrl when 2 clouds with same name exist

[mawinter69]

The fix in #26004 was not sufficient when 2 clouds are created with the same name.
The second cloud produces a different url but in t:actions the url for the action is computed from it.url which used the non indexed url so basically going to the wrong cloud.
Similarly when saving such a cloud the form was redirecting to the wrong url

Fixes #26174
Fixes #26183

Testing done

Adjusted the tests in CloudTest:

• Added a new test that verifies second clouds uses a url with index
• Adjusted the ui test that an action for a second cloud has the correct url. The test fails without the fix
• Added a new test that verifies after saving the form one is redirected to the correct url

Screenshots (UI changes only)

Before

After

Proposed changelog entries

• Fix Cloud#getUrl when 2 clouds with same name exist.

Proposed changelog category

/label bug

Proposed upgrade guidelines

N/A

Submitter checklist

• The issue, if it exists, is well-described.
• The changelog entries and upgrade guidelines are appropriate for the audience affected by the change (users or developers, depending on the change) and are in the imperative mood (see examples). Fill in the Proposed upgrade guidelines section only if there are breaking changes or changes that may require extra steps from users during upgrade.
• There is automated testing or an explanation as to why this change has no tests.
• New public classes, fields, and methods are annotated with @Restricted or have @since TODO Javadocs, as appropriate.
• New deprecations are annotated with @Deprecated(since = "TODO") or @Deprecated(forRemoval = true, since = "TODO"), if applicable.
• UI changes do not introduce regressions when enforcing the current default rules of Content Security Policy Plugin. In particular, new or substantially changed JavaScript is not defined inline and does not call eval to ease future introduction of Content Security Policy (CSP) directives (see documentation).
• For dependency updates, there are links to external changelogs and, if possible, full differentials.
• For new APIs and extension points, there is a link to at least one consumer.

Desired reviewers

@mention

Before the changes are marked as ready-for-merge:

Maintainer checklist

• There are at least two (2) approvals for the pull request and no outstanding requests for change.
• Conversations in the pull request are over, or it is explicit that a reviewer is not blocking the change.
• Changelog entries in the pull request title and/or Proposed changelog entries are accurate, human-readable, and in the imperative mood.
• Proper changelog labels are set so that the changelog can be generated automatically.
• If the change needs additional upgrade steps from users, the upgrade-guide-needed label is set and there is a Proposed upgrade guidelines section in the pull request title (see example).
• If it would make sense to backport the change to LTS, be a Bug or Improvement, and either the issue or pull request must be labeled as lts-candidate to be considered.

[mawinter69]

This overlaps with #26009

[timja]

LGTM

[mawinter69]

This is obsolete when #26233 is merged. Using the Ids is the more reliable way and fixes all the problems around duplicate names,

[github-actions]

Please take a moment and address the merge conflicts of your pull request. Thanks!