grafanaPlugins: use API to generate plugins.nix

[bouk]

Description of changes

This makes sure that all the plugins are available by using a jq script that generates plugins.nix from the API.

@NukaDuka @lukegb what do y'all think?

Things done

• Built on platform(s)
  • x86_64-linux
  • aarch64-linux
  • x86_64-darwin
  • aarch64-darwin
• For non-Linux: Is sandboxing enabled in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
  • sandbox = relaxed
  • sandbox = true
• Tested, as applicable:
  • NixOS test(s) (look inside nixos/tests)
  • and/or package tests
  • or, for functions and "core" functionality, tests in lib/tests or pkgs/test
  • made sure NixOS tests are linked to the relevant packages
• Tested compilation of all packages that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage
• Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
• 24.05 Release Notes (or backporting 23.05 and 23.11 Release notes)
  • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
  • (Module updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is significant
  • (Module addition) Added a release notes entry if adding a new NixOS module
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

[lukegb]

I love it, conceptually, and I think this will make things much easier to maintain.

I have a nit though; see my review comment.

[bouk]

@lukegb what do you think now?

[lukegb]

My remaining concern here is that we lose information about licenses; https://grafana.com/legal/plugins/?plcmt=footer claims that it needs to be one of the listed AGPL-compatible licenses, but I don't think it's particularly easy for us to determine which one from the Grafana API. I'm also not sure whether this also applies to Grafana's own plugins published in the catalog...

[bouk]

@lukegb correct, this is the only downside of this approach. All of grafana's own plugins are licensed apache2, which is why I set the license to apache2 in grafana-plugin.nix.

[bouk]

@lukegb do you reckon there's a way forward with this change? Or do we need to scrape the license information somehow if we want to include the plugins?

We could also default the plugins to unfree and provide overrides

[CertainLach]

We could also default the plugins to unfree and provide overrides

Since free packages are cached by hydra, and in nixos we haven't reached a consensus even regarding caching unfree-redistributable (#83884), it makes sense to avoid any problems and consider plugin to be unfree until proven free.

Information about license can be obtained by fetching single plugin JSON (E.g https://grafana.com/api/plugins/quickwit-quickwit-datasource), there we can see a link to the license, but to convert this license to nix expression, this link needs to be fetched (Which isn't always possible, because it is not always pointing to github), and then it needs to be somehow parsed, which is too much for nixpkgs I think