[kotlin][client] do not generate Serializable(forClass) annotation as the serializer is already defined

[hrach]

This removes excessive annotation that newly produces a warning that may prevent compilation of the generated code.

@Serializable(forClass=x) is intended for the Kotlin Serialization plugin to generate the serializable logic automatically. But since this generator generates this logic, there is nothing to be generated from the serialization plugin's side.

The error:

@Serializer annotation has no effect on class 'XXX', because all members of KSerializer are already overridden

Documentation: https://github.com/Kotlin/kotlinx.serialization/blob/master/docs/serializers.md#deriving-external-serializer-for-another-kotlin-class-experimental

@e5l

PR checklist

• Read the contribution guidelines.
• Pull Request title clearly describes the work in the pull request and Pull Request description provides details about how to validate the work. Missing information here may result in delayed response from the community.
• Run the following to build the project and update samples:

  ./mvnw clean package || exit
  ./bin/generate-samples.sh ./bin/configs/*.yaml || exit
  ./bin/utils/export_docs_generators.sh || exit
  

  (For Windows users, please run the script in Git BASH)
  Commit all changed files.
  This is important, as CI jobs will verify all generator outputs of your HEAD commit as it would merge with master.
  These must match the expectations made by your contribution.
  You may regenerate an individual generator by passing the relevant config(s) as an argument to the script, for example ./bin/generate-samples.sh bin/configs/java*.
  IMPORTANT: Do NOT purge/delete any folders/files (e.g. tests) when regenerating the samples as manually written tests may be removed.
• File the PR against the correct branch: master (upcoming 7.x.0 minor release - breaking changes with fallbacks), 8.0.x (breaking changes without fallbacks)
• If your PR is targeting a particular programming language, @mention the technical committee members, so they are more likely to review the pull request.

[e5l]

thanks! Looks good as well. I would merge both PRs into one :)

[4brunu]

Looks good, let's merge booth PR. 👍

[4brunu]

@hrach thanks for the PR.
@e5l thanks for helping reviewing it.