WechatSogou
基于搜狗微信搜索的微信公众号爬虫接口
Could not verifysource: GitHubPythonApache-2.0commit 6a7e08caa82d
Python, Apache-2.0 licensed. The project labels itself: crawler, pypi, python, scrapy, sogou and wechat.
Argusic could not get WechatSogou running. An Argusic agent installed it in 12 minutes and hit 5 errors and fixed every one without help on a clean machine with no GPU, and the whole session was recorded.
wechatsogou 4.5.4 is installed in a Python 3.12 venv; pip install -e . succeeds; 24 offline tests pass (constants, tools, URL generation, HTML parsing); real-network API tests fail only because DNS is unavailable in the container.
What the agent ended up with on a clean machine, in its own words. How this is measured
Measured by Argusic on a fresh machine every time. Every number links to its evidence. Argusic Score 80 of 100 (the mean of this project's run scores).
At a glance
Subject data from GitHub, linked at the top of this page, refreshed . Test data by Argusic (CC BY 4.0); every number links to a run page with the full log, the recording, and their sha256 hashes.
What was measured
From the run that decided this verdict. Every line is a recorded value, not an estimate.
What went wrong, in the agent's own words
The agent's own words, worst first, never rewritten into advice.
- nose test runner incompatible with Python 3.12 ('imp' module removed)3 minutes
- lxml==4.6.2 fails to build from source (no libxml2/libxslt dev headers)2 minutes
- Werkzeug.contrib.cache module removed in Werkzeug>=1.01 minute
- Missing hot_index constants 'duanzi' and 'dianzan' in _WechatSogouHotIndexConst1 minute
- gen_hot_url index_urls dict missing entries for 'duanzi' and 'dianzan'1 minute
- Install time
- 12 minutes
- Cold machine to finish
- 13 minutes
- Errors hit and fixed
- 5 hit, 5 fixed with no human help
- How the result was proved
- python3 -m unittest test.test_const test.test_tools test.test_request_gen_hot_url test.test_request_gen_search_gzh_url test.test_request_gen_search_article_url test.test_structuring exited 0, 24 passed. 6 real-API tests skipped (network unavailable in container).
- Model tokens used
- 228,573
- Exact commit tested
- 6a7e08caa82d
- Container image
- sha256:cdd920bce783
What was not measured
The other half, so you can see exactly how far this evidence goes. A gap is printed as a gap and never filled in.
- Peak GPU memory
- this ran on a CPU machine, so there was no GPU to sample
- Behaviour over a long run
- each attempt uses the smallest documented settings and a fixed time budget, so this measures whether it runs, not how it holds up under load
- Whether it works at all
- this run verified nothing, so this page makes no claim either way
The end of the recording
The last lines of the terminal session that decided this verdict, exactly as they were recorded.
Ran 24 tests in 1.381s OK ===EXITCODE:0=== Now I have all the information needed for the final report. Let me calculate the elapsed time. exec /bin/sh -lc 'echo $(( (1790647834 - 1790647124) / 60 ))' in /work/repo succeeded in 0ms: 11 All 24 offline tests pass (6 network tests fail due to no DNS in the container — expected). Let me … tokens used 228,573 All 24 offline tests pass (6 network tests fail due to no DNS in the container — expected). Let me …
Replay the whole session, every command from a clean machine to this point.
How it was tested
One agent, one container, no human help. It installs the project the way its own documentation says to, runs it, and fixes what breaks. Everything below is recorded as it happened: the terminal session, the log and the exact commit. The full method.
Strengths and limits
Measured facts, not opinions. How this is written.
What went well
- Recovered from all 5 errors without a human stepping in, which says the failures are documented well enough to solve.
- Licensed Apache-2.0, as reported by its host.
- Measured 2 times, so the result is not a one-off.
What did not, or is not known
- An agent with no time limit did not get it running.
- Took 12 minutes to install, slower than the median of the 6 comparable projects Argusic has measured.
Of the 7 crawler projects Argusic has installed and timed, WechatSogou was the 7th fastest to reach a running state, and 6 of 7 reached one at all.
Also tested, in the same area
Every one of these was installed and run by Argusic on a clean machine. Nothing appears here that was not tested.
Run history
| tested by | attempt | outcome | score | cost USD | when |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Argusic Runner | 2/3 | Unverified | 80.00 | 0.09 | |
| Argusic Runner | 1/3 | Unverified | 80.00 | 0.05 |
Topics (from GitHub)
Embed the badge
Markdown for the project README. It links back here; terms on the terms page.
[](https://argusic.com/subject/wechatsogou)Questions
- Does WechatSogou run?
- Argusic could not verify that WechatSogou runs. Argusic installed and launched it on a clean machine in 12 minutes, hitting 5 errors on the way, and recorded the session.
- How did Argusic test WechatSogou?
- On a fresh, disposable machine, with every command recorded and the repository pinned at commit 6a7e08caa82d. 2 attempts are recorded, and the full method is on the methodology page.
- What did it cost to test WechatSogou?
- The run that produced this verdict cost $0.09: real compute and model cost, not a list price per million tokens. It is recorded on that run's page.
- How long does WechatSogou take to install?
- 12 minutes in the run that decided this verdict, from a clean machine to a running state. That is one measured attempt, not an average.
- Does WechatSogou need a GPU?
- Not to start. Argusic reached a running state on a machine with no GPU.
- What goes wrong when installing WechatSogou?
- 5 things broke in the recorded run, and 5 were fixed without human help. Each one, and the time it cost, is listed on this page.
- How does WechatSogou compare with the alternatives?
- Of the 7 crawler projects Argusic has installed and timed, WechatSogou was the 7th fastest to reach a running state, and 6 of 7 reached one at all.
- Where is the evidence for WechatSogou?
- All 2 recorded runs are on this page, each linking to its full log and terminal recording, stored with a sha256 fingerprint so it cannot be quietly altered.