Hi Agrim, thanks for the PR!
A couple of notes:

1. Please remove the unused result import from unittest, since it is not referenced anywhere.

2. Several hasattr(...) checks, such as hasattr(agent_set, "df"), add unnecessary defensive code and reduce readability. Switch to direct attribute access and rely on the object contract instead.

Before pushing the next commit, run the test suite locally with pytest and resolve any failures. As a hint, the current failure seems related to the shape of the DataFrame.

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 95.45455% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 92.62%. Comparing base (658be7a) to head (7380395).
⚠️ Report is 17 commits behind head on main.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #182      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   92.54%   92.62%   +0.07%     
==========================================
  Files          14       14              
  Lines        1717     1748      +31     
==========================================
+ Hits         1589     1619      +30     
- Misses        128      129       +1     

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

hey @Ben-geo & @adamamer20 its been a while since the PR is raised and further review is required from your side, kindly give it a review whenever possible.
Looking forward for further contribution!

hey @Ben-geo & @adamamer20 its been a while since the PR is raised and further review is required from your side, kindly give it a review whenever possible. Looking forward for further contribution!

Hey @AgrimGupta04
Firstly, the PR currently has merge conflicts with main. Could you please resolve those first?

While reviewing the changes, I noticed a significant number of modifications to the test cases that don’t seem necessary for the feature being added. I was also a bit confused by the overall scope of the PR. For adding a unique_id to the data collector, the implementation should ideally be much simpler. The expected behavior is just to include a unique_id column during collection when the user hasn’t explicitly provided one.

Because of this confusion, I paused the review earlier and requested a few minor changes. Unfortunately, those requested changes haven’t been implemented yet. Sorry for any confusion on my part as well.

Also, please note that we are currently in the middle of a release, so this PR may not be merged until the release is completed.

Could you please simplify the implementation accordingly and resolve the merge conflicts with main?

okay @Ben-geo since this PR is raised from main branch I will first go ahead and raise a new PR from a featured branch & also make sure to add the required changes to the implementation.