jmesPath, extracting keys starting with "text"

[FelixL]

Just hit a wall with jmesPath, maybe someone has an idea how to solve that elegantly:

I’ve got this simplified JSON (from a webhook):

[
   {
      "body":{
         "profile":{
            "question_gx3xvn":{
               "value":"Answer1",
               "title":"Frage1?"
            },
            "question_bf5zj5":{
               "value":"Answer2",
               "title":"Frage2?"
            },
            "question_idna7x":{
               "value":"Answer3",
               "title":"Frage3?"
            },
            "question_u75yyy":{
               "value":"Answer4",
               "title":"Frage4?"
            },
            "question_wol4da":{
               "value":"Answer15",
               "title":"Frage5"
            },
            "name":{
               "value":"John Doe",
               "title":"Vor- & Nachname"
            },
            "email":{
               "value":"[email protected]",
               "title":"Deine E-Mail Adresse"
            },
            "phone":{
               "value":"0043123456789",
               "title":"Telefon"
            }
         }
      }
   }
]

The symbols in the question keys are random after “question_”.
I want one string field, where all questions with answers are combined in a human-readable format.
Something like that:

Question1: Answer1
Question2: Answer2
.
.
.

I thought about doing it with jmesPath in an expression in a Set node, as I already have a Set node there to clean up the data.

Here’s my last attempt, I only get an empty object with that.

{{ $jmespath($json.body.profile, "[?starts_with(@, 'question_')].json") }}

I would greatly appreciate any suggestions on how to accomplish this.

test workflow

[MutedJam]

Hi @FelixL, I can’t think of an elegant way of solving this with JMESPath tbh (there probably is one though, I just can’t figure it out today). Perhaps you just want to use vanilla JS instead?

Something like this:

This would be the result, returned in a single message field:

[FelixL]

Hi @MutedJam, yep already thought about using a code node too, just wanted to know if there is an alternative, as I am trying to reduce my use of the code node.

Thanks for taking the time to write out a solution.