Node should support passing in Properties that don't support PhET-iO

[zepumph]

Over in #1158 and other issues like it, we have added support for passing in Properties to Node through options/mutate.

Currently this is supported by:

visibleProperty
enabledProperty
inputEnabledProperty

The support thus far has been dictated on the need to support these as PhET-iO instrumented sub-Properties of a Node. That said there are many other TinyProperties in Node that don't need PhET-iO support, but that we may want to still be able to pass in a Property for. The list to me is:

pickableProperty
opacityProperty
disabledOpacityProperty
clipAreaProperty

Do we want to support passing in Properties via options for these?

It would be some work (mostly boilerplate) to outfit TinyForwardingProperty and unit tests to support this non-phet-io case, but it is likely worth it for a consistent API. I think I would like to ask developers before spending time on this. I'm going to mark this as high priority because there is cleanup around setPickableProperty that has not been cleaned up yet from #1158 because it is waiting on this decision. Marking for a (hopefully) short discussion on supporting passed-in Properties that aren't conditionally instrumented for PhET-iO.

[chrisklus]

From 4/1/21 dev meeting:

JO: What's the cost for supporting this for everything?
MK: It would take work to make sure this was done correctly
MK: I think it is the right decision to do this, and I would like to, but am unsure of priority

[zepumph]

I'm going to remove this from high priority until someone wants to pass in one of these Properties. It wouldn't be a simple item to accomplish