bugfix/437-performance-regression

[AndrzejBuleczka]

Fixed performance regression on multiple charts render, closes #437.

[AndrzejBuleczka]

I reworked the v5 init path so the directive no longer relies on the old default 500ms timeout as a synchronization buffer. Instead of calling a fire-and-forget load() and then waiting before creating the chart, HighchartsChartService.load(partialConfig) now returns a real readiness promise for that directive’s exact config: it caches the shared Highcharts core/global setup once, loads partial modules for the current directive, and resolves only when that specific instance is ready to use. On the directive side, chart creation is now driven by that readiness signal rather than by an async computed() with a default wait, so we keep the async lifecycle boundary but remove the artificial startup penalty that was amplifying the regression on pages with many complex charts. In practice this restores behavior much closer to v4 because we are coordinating on actual module readiness instead of time-based guessing.

[wchmiel]

I’ve tested the changes locally and it looks like the solution works and the bug has been fixed – well done ;) However, I think @karolkolodziej or someone involved more in maintaining the wrapper should check this, as there are some core changes here. I just have a few minor questions/requests.

[KacperMadej]

Trashing time-based guessing for loading is good improvement.

I'm still a bit rusty with this repo and a lot has changed since I was actively involved in the development, so please take my review with a grain of salt.

Could you point me to the performance test that we could use in the future to make sure it's not dropping back down after, let's say HC v13 release?

With HC v13 being available currently as a beta release - have you tested this PR with it? It's not a must have but would be nice to check this in advance - there can be a follow up task to take care of this to avoid blocking this PR.

[KacperMadej]

Importing modules/map twice is needed for something? If no, the line above should be safe to remove.