Add support for Auth Next.

[overcat]

What problem does your feature solve?

We need to add an interface for users to add signatures in the InvokeHostFunctionOperation.auth.

What would you like to see?

I have added an implementation in the Python SDK, but I'm not sure if it is the optimal solution. I would like to have more discussion on this.

Related discussion: stellar/js-stellar-base#632

What alternatives are there?

None

Estimated working hours: TBD, more discussion is needed.

[overcat]

Hi @sreuland, I want to release a beta version after completing #490, so that users can have an early experience and provide feedback.

But due to the lack of sufficient discussion on Auth Next at present, I would like to exclude it from this release and postpone it to a later release. Do you think this is acceptable? We can wait for it to be completed in the JS/Python SDK first.

[sreuland]

yes, sounds like a good approach. Let's pull #489 out of #490.

What will this mean for the type of soroban transactions which can be built and submitted by the first beta java sdk release? Sounds like would mean tx source account is the only address used in contract auths, i.e. SOROBAN_CREDENTIALS_SOURCE_ACCOUNT and that auth entry is built by default with simulation response?

thanks!

[overcat]

yes, sounds like a good approach. Let's pull #489 out of #490.

What will this mean for the type of soroban transactions which can be built and submitted by the first beta java sdk release? Sounds like would mean tx source account is the only address used in contract auths, i.e. SOROBAN_CREDENTIALS_SOURCE_ACCOUNT and that auth entry is built by default with simulation response?

thanks!

Yes, this means that users can only use the SOROBAN_CREDENTIALS_SOURCE_ACCOUNT authentication method, but this is sufficient to meet the majority of current needs. Let's take a break and then come back to improve other content.

[overcat]

Implemented in #537.