Comment 1 for bug 653697

Thanks for this report! I think however that this is the intended behavior: column sorts are cumulative when possible. In the example you sorted by Description (ascending), then Date (ascending) so it is using the previous sort (Description ASC) as a tie-breaker. Try sorting by Description descending then Date ascending, and you'll see the opposite effect, and a similar thing with Amount and such.

Do you think this behavior is not preferred? The only issue I see is that there isn't a clear way to "reset" the previous sort columns.

It might be better sort not just be date for that column but also transaction ID, which would give you a more expected result when ordering transactions by Date descending. Right now if I do that I still get BB above AA when it should be swapped. I think I like the idea of that, and it should mean also there are no tie-breakers for dates, what do you think?