fix(java): fix enum abstract field serialization (#1765)

## What does this PR do?

 fix enum abstract field serialization

## Related issues

Closes #1764 

## Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?

<!--
If any user-facing interface changes, please [open an
issue](https://github.com/apache/fury/issues/new/choose) describing the
need to do so and update the document if necessary.
-->

- [ ] Does this PR introduce any public API change?
- [ ] Does this PR introduce any binary protocol compatibility change?


## Benchmark

<!--
When the PR has an impact on performance (if you don't know whether the
PR will have an impact on performance, you can submit the PR first, and
if it will have impact on performance, the code reviewer will explain
it), be sure to attach a benchmark data here.
-->

java/fury-core/src/main/java/org/apache/fury/resolver/ClassResolver.java

@@ -809,7 +809,7 @@ public Class<? extends Serializer> getSerializerClass(Class<?> cls) {
   }
 
   public Class<? extends Serializer> getSerializerClass(Class<?> cls, boolean codegen) {
-    if (ReflectionUtils.isAbstract(cls) || cls.isInterface()) {
+    if (!cls.isEnum() && (ReflectionUtils.isAbstract(cls) || cls.isInterface())) {
       throw new UnsupportedOperationException(
           String.format("Class %s doesn't support serialization.", cls));
     }

java/fury-core/src/test/java/org/apache/fury/serializer/EnumSerializerTest.java

@@ -21,9 +21,12 @@
 
 import static org.testng.Assert.*;
 
+import lombok.AllArgsConstructor;
+import lombok.Data;
 import org.apache.fury.Fury;
 import org.apache.fury.FuryTestBase;
 import org.apache.fury.codegen.JaninoUtils;
+import org.apache.fury.config.CompatibleMode;
 import org.apache.fury.config.FuryBuilder;
 import org.apache.fury.config.Language;
 import org.testng.annotations.Test;
@@ -60,15 +63,13 @@ public void testEnumSerialization(boolean referenceTracking, Language language)
             .requireClassRegistration(false);
     Fury fury1 = builder.build();
     Fury fury2 = builder.build();
-    assertEquals(EnumSerializerTest.EnumFoo.A, serDe(fury1, fury2, EnumSerializerTest.EnumFoo.A));
-    assertEquals(EnumSerializerTest.EnumFoo.B, serDe(fury1, fury2, EnumSerializerTest.EnumFoo.B));
-    assertEquals(
-        EnumSerializerTest.EnumSubClass.A, serDe(fury1, fury2, EnumSerializerTest.EnumSubClass.A));
-    assertEquals(
-        EnumSerializerTest.EnumSubClass.B, serDe(fury1, fury2, EnumSerializerTest.EnumSubClass.B));
+    assertEquals(EnumFoo.A, serDe(fury1, fury2, EnumFoo.A));
+    assertEquals(EnumFoo.B, serDe(fury1, fury2, EnumFoo.B));
+    assertEquals(EnumSubClass.A, serDe(fury1, fury2, EnumSubClass.A));
+    assertEquals(EnumSubClass.B, serDe(fury1, fury2, EnumSubClass.B));
   }
 
-  @Test()
+  @Test
   public void testEnumSerializationUnexistentEnumValueAsNull() {
     String enumCode2 = "enum TestEnum2 {" + " A;" + "}";
     String enumCode1 = "enum TestEnum2 {" + " A, B" + "}";
@@ -93,4 +94,26 @@ public void testEnumSerializationUnexistentEnumValueAsNull() {
     byte[] bytes = furySerialization.serialize(cls1.getEnumConstants()[1]);
     Object data = furyDeserialize.deserialize(bytes);
   }
+
+  @Data
+  @AllArgsConstructor
+  static class EnumSubclassFieldTest {
+    EnumSubClass subEnum;
+  }
+
+  @Test(dataProvider = "enableCodegen")
+  public void testEnumSubclassField(boolean enableCodegen) {
+    serDeCheck(
+        builder().withCodegen(enableCodegen).build(), new EnumSubclassFieldTest(EnumSubClass.B));
+  }
+
+  @Test(dataProvider = "scopedMetaShare")
+  public void testEnumSubclassFieldCompatible(boolean scopedMetaShare) {
+    serDeCheck(
+        builder()
+            .withScopedMetaShare(scopedMetaShare)
+            .withCompatibleMode(CompatibleMode.COMPATIBLE)
+            .build(),
+        new EnumSubclassFieldTest(EnumSubClass.B));
+  }
 }