Fix some linting warnings (plus future use of staticcheck?)

[c9845]

• Comment out unused code.
• Fix incorrect JSON struct tag (missing opening double-quote).
• Remove unneeded type inside slice of type ("redundant type from array, slice, or map composite literal" warning).

---

There are a lot of other warnings shown by staticcheck that were not fixed (staticcheck isn't in use for this repo). Most of these warnings are for the checks listed below. Fixing these is a rather big change, just due to volume of lines changed. Whether or not we want to implement staticcheck is the question.

• ST1003 (using Api instead of API in struct field name).
• ST1021 (not starting the documentation of an exported type with it's name.
• ST1020 (not starting the documentation of an exported method or func with the method's name).

Changing field names per warning ST1003 is a breaking change, so is probably best to be avoided (staticcheck.conf would be set to checks="all", "-ST1003"]). Fixes for the other warnings are no issue since these are just a documentation change.

Examples to be fixed...

• abandoned_checkout.go:25:1: comment on exported type AbandonedCheckoutsResource should be of the form "AbandonedCheckoutsResource ..." (with optional leading article) (ST1021)
• abandoned_checkout.go:85:1: comment on exported method List should be of the form "List ..." (ST1020)
• blog.go:49:1: comment on exported type BlogResource should be of the form "BlogResource ..." (with optional leading article) (ST1021)
• carrier.go:75:1: comment on exported type ShippingRateAddress should be of the form "ShippingRateAddress ..." (with optional leading article) (ST1021)
• carrier.go: 100:1: comment on exported type ShippingRateResponse should be of the form "ShippingRateResponse ..." (with optional leading article) (ST1021)
• collect.go:39:1: comment on exported type CollectResource should be of the form "CollectResource ..." (with optional leading article) (ST1021)
• collect.go:44:1: comment on exported type CollectsResource should be of the form "CollectsResource ..." (with optional leading article) (ST1021)
• collection.go:39:1: comment on exported type CollectionResource should be of the form "CollectionResource ..." (with optional leading article) (ST1021)
• collection.go:52:1: comment on exported method ListProducts should be of the form "ListProducts ..." (ST1020)

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 100.00% and no project coverage change.

Comparison is base (d54f22b) 100.00% compared to head (7868d1a) 100.00%.

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #226 +/- ## ========================================= Coverage 100.00% 100.00% ========================================= Files 46 46 Lines 2088 2088 ========================================= Hits 2088 2088 ``` | [Files Changed](https://app.codecov.io/gh/bold-commerce/go-shopify/pull/226?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Bold+Commerce) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [customer\_address.go](https://app.codecov.io/gh/bold-commerce/go-shopify/pull/226?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Bold+Commerce#diff-Y3VzdG9tZXJfYWRkcmVzcy5nbw==) | `100.00% <ø> (ø)` | | | [product\_listing.go](https://app.codecov.io/gh/bold-commerce/go-shopify/pull/226?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Bold+Commerce#diff-cHJvZHVjdF9saXN0aW5nLmdv) | `100.00% <ø> (ø)` | | | [goshopify.go](https://app.codecov.io/gh/bold-commerce/go-shopify/pull/226?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Bold+Commerce#diff-Z29zaG9waWZ5Lmdv) | `100.00% <100.00%> (ø)` | |

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[oliver006]

Thanks for opening this PR - it still seems to be WIP - ping me when you're ready for review or feedback.

[c9845]

@oliver006 I am done with this for now.

The questions becomes, do we want to implement staticcheck for the repo. If yes, then this becomes a much larger change.

[oliver006]

Thanks for clarifying. Leaving commented out code in the repo is not a good practice, dead code should just be removed unless there's a very good reason. The rest of the changes look alright. If you could clean up the commented-out code stuff then I think we should e good to go.

[c9845]

@oliver006 Commented out code has been removed.

What are your thoughts on utilizing staticcheck?

[oliver006]

Thanks @c9845 - this should be good to go. I don't think there's an urgent need for adding staticcheck to the CI right now. If you submit a PR then I'll review it but I don't have the time right now to add it myself.