[ZEPPELIN-6543] Handle invokeMethod serialization failure as InterpreterRPCException

[gyowoo1113]

What is this PR for?

This PR follows up on ZEPPELIN-6467 / PR #5312.

Following PR #5312, Resource.serializeObject() propagates serialization failures as IOException. As a result, RemoteInterpreterEventServer.invokeMethod() can receive an exception while re-serializing a remote resource invocation result. The existing handler logged the exception and returned a null ByteBuffer, causing the generated Thrift client to report a missing result instead of preserving the original serialization failure.

The Jira issue identified this behavior through code analysis, but the server-side deserialize-and-re-serialize failure path had not yet been reproduced.

This PR adds a regression test using a serializable object that succeeds during the initial serialization and fails during the server-side second serialization. It then changes invokeMethod() to propagate the failure as InterpreterRPCException, allowing the original error message to reach the caller instead of being converted into an unrelated Thrift missing-result error.

The behavior for successfully serialized results is unchanged.

What type of PR is it?

Bug Fix

Todos

• Reproduce the server-side deserialize-and-re-serialize failure path with a regression test
• Propagate serialization failures as InterpreterRPCException
• Verify that the propagated exception contains the original failure message

What is the Jira issue?

[ZEPPELIN-6543]

How should this be tested?

./mvnw test -pl zeppelin-server -Dtest=RemoteInterpreterEventServerTest passes successfully.

Screenshots (if appropriate)

N/A

Questions:

• Does the license files need to update? No
• Is there breaking changes for older versions? No
• Does this needs documentation? No
• Code inspection suggests that Resource.serializeObject() may return null when the result is not serializable, but this path is not covered by the regression test in this PR. Should this case also be handled in this PR, or should it be addressed separately?