Adding SwiftSyntaxBuilder to the build process

[vrjuliao]

The build process of SwiftSyntax, should build three shared objects:

• SwiftSyntax
• SwiftSyntaxParser
• SwiftSyntaxBuilder

The SwiftSyntaxBuilder one has not been called to be built, then this pull request adds such build call to the build-script.py file. Also, there are two points in the build process that was producing erros during the SwiftSyntaxBuilder build.

1. Python3 strings does not support string_escape encode. However, python2 strings supports encoding for utf-8 and decoding as unicode_escape.
   I'm not sure about differences between string.encode('utf-8').decode('unicode_escape') and string.decode('string_escape') in Python2, but looking for the data that will be used to fill Tokens.swift.gyb we only have UTF-8 characters, and for that case these approaches are equivalent. See the values in the file swift/utils/gyb_syntax_support/Token.py.
2. The local module import in SyntaxBuildableWrappers.py and __init__.py is failing. The dot must to be added to tell to pyhton3 interpreter that we are dealing with the local module (actually, the same directory).

[ahoppen]

Thanks for your PR 👍. Building SwiftSyntaxBuilder using build-script.py makes sense to me. Currently, we only build it using build-script.py when running tests.

As for your other changes: Those issues are because we are still using Python 2 for all sorts of Python scripts in the swift project. There’s another PR up at #378 that fixes this. I think for this PR we should either

• Remove your modifications (only keep builder.build("SwiftSyntaxBuilder")) or
• Wait for Migrate to use Python 3 #378 to be merged before merging this one (which will probably also render your modifications unnecessary)

[vrjuliao]

HI @ahoppen!
I didn't see the pr #378 . I'm sorry about that. I will get this modifications back, and only keep the SwiftSyntaxBuilder one.

[ahoppen]

No worries. Would you mind squashing your changes into one commit and force pushing. Having five commits do and undo some changes just looks noisy in the git history.

[kimdv]

This have been fixed in #381 🎉

[kimdv]

@ahoppen think we just can close this one.
#379 (comment)

[ahoppen]

Yes, you’re right 👍